Summary
This New York Appellate Division decision addresses the validity of a defendant's waiver of his right to appeal following a guilty plea to criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree. The court holds that the waiver remains effective even though the formal colloquy occurred after the plea, provided the court informed the defendant beforehand and verified his understanding prior to completing the proceeding. The court further rules that an oral waiver is legally sufficient without a written instrument. Accordingly, the waiver bars review of the defendant's suppression challenge, and the lower court's judgment is unanimously affirmed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendant validly waived his right to appeal under the plea agreement.
Holdings
- A waiver of the right to appeal is valid when the court informs the defendant, before entering the plea, that the waiver will be a condition of the plea bargain and the court ensures the defendant adequately understands the right being forfeited; an oral waiver is sufficient.
Key quotations
“A waiver of the right to appeal is not effective where . . . it '[is] not mentioned until after [the] defendant plead[s] guilty'”
“The fact that the appeal waiver was not reduced to writing is of no moment where, as here, the oral waiver was adequate”
Factual background
Defendant Alfred J. Thomas pleaded guilty to criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree. The trial court informed him, before entering the plea, that a waiver of his right to appeal would be a condition of the plea bargain and used the NY Model Colloquy to ensure he understood the waiver. The defendant later contended the waiver was ineffective because the colloquy occurred after his plea.
Procedural history
The Ontario County Court entered a judgment of conviction after the defendant pleaded guilty. The defendant appealed, arguing that his waiver of the right to appeal was ineffective because the waiver colloquy was not conducted until after the plea.