PEOPLE v. SESSOMS (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Edward T. McLoughlin, J.), rendered July 12, 2023, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to a determinate term of imprisonment of 31/212 years, to be followed by 5 years of postrelease supervision.  The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence imposed from a determinate term of imprisonment of 31/212 years, to be followed by 5 years of postrelease supervision, to a determinate term of imprisonment of 31/212 years, to be followed by 21/212 years of postrelease supervision;  as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

After the issuance of a search warrant based upon information obtained by an eyewitness, the police recovered a loaded firearm in the defendant's vehicle.  The defendant moved, inter alia, to suppress the physical evidence seized in the execution of the search warrant.  The County Court denied the defendant's motion.  The defendant thereafter entered a plea of guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment.  The defendant appeals.

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 County Court imposing sentence (see CPL 470.05[2];  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 the County Court erred in denying that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress the physical evidence seized in the execution of the search warrant because he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 18–23, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919;  People v. Clark, 194 A.D.3d 948, 950, 149 N.Y.S.3d 174).  In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit (see People v. Lexune, 236 A.D.3d 1060, 1062, 230 N.Y.S.3d 379;  People v. Rice, 204 A.D.3d 834, 836, 166 N.Y.S.3d 57).

Nonetheless, the sentence should be reduced as indicated in order to conform to the terms of the negotiated plea.

GENOVESI, J.P., WARHIT, GOLIA and HOM, JJ., concur.