People v. Dickerson

2025 NY Slip Op 00108 · Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department · January 8, 2025 · No. Ind. No. 929/17

Summary

This is an uncorrected slip opinion from the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, decided on January 8, 2025. The court affirmed the defendant's judgment of conviction for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree following a guilty plea. The court held that the defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal forecloses any appellate review of his prior motion to suppress evidence seized under a search warrant.

Court
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Writing for the Court
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P.; LINDA CHRISTOPHER; BARRY E. WARHIT; JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
January 8, 2025
Docket number
Ind. No. 929/17
Procedural posture
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Rahiem Dickerson v. People of the State of New York
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

search and seizuresuppression of evidenceappellate jurisdictionstandard of reviewcriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal forecloses appellate review of the denial of his motion to controvert a search warrant and to suppress physical evidence seized in its execution.

Holdings

  1. The judgment is affirmed because the defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal forecloses appellate review of the denial of his motion to controvert a search warrant and to suppress the seized evidence.

Key quotations

The record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal.
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal forecloses appellate review of the denial of his motion to controvert a search warrant and to suppress physical evidence seized in the execution thereof.

Factual background

The record shows that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal after pleading guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.

Procedural history

The defendant appealed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Supreme Court, Nassau County. The appellate division considered whether the defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal barred review of a denied motion to controvert a search warrant and to suppress evidence.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…