PEOPLE v. WOODS (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jane Tully, J.), rendered September 6, 2024, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.  The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's challenge to the validity of his plea of guilty is unpreserved for appellate review because the defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise object to its entry prior to the Supreme Court imposing sentence (see People v. Williams, 27 N.Y.3d 212, 214, 32 N.Y.S.3d 17, 51 N.E.3d 528;  People v. Lee, 225 A.D.3d 788, 788–789, 205 N.Y.S.3d 494).  In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant's plea of guilty was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v. Hollmond, 191 A.D.3d 120, 136, 135 N.Y.S.3d 449;  People v. Bautista, 138 A.D.3d 754, 754–755, 27 N.Y.S.3d 893).

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is based, in part, on matter appearing on the record and, in part, on matter outside the record, and thus, constitutes a “mixed claim” of ineffective assistance (People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d 1108, 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386;  see People v. Evans, 16 N.Y.3d 571, 575 n 2, 925 N.Y.S.2d 366, 949 N.E.2d 457;  People v. Heggs, 237 A.D.3d 1107, 1108, 232 N.Y.S.3d 607).  Since the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be resolved without reference to matter outside the record, a CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing the claim in its entirety, and we decline to review the claim on this direct appeal (see People v. Freeman, 93 A.D.3d 805, 806, 940 N.Y.S.2d 314;  People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d at 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, a particular police officer's subsequent identification of the defendant from a single photograph was merely confirmatory (see People v. Richardson, 200 A.D.3d 984, 985, 159 N.Y.S.3d 120;  People v. Adio, 111 A.D.3d 757, 758, 974 N.Y.S.2d 557;  cf.  People v. Coleman, 73 A.D.3d 1200, 1202–1203, 903 N.Y.S.2d 431).  Thus, the Supreme Court properly found that the defendant was not subjected to impermissibly suggestive identification procedures, and properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence.

GENOVESI, J.P., DOWLING, WAN and HOM, JJ., concur.