People v. Spann

2025 NY Slip Op 02224 · Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department · April 16, 2025 · No. Ind. No. 73753/21

Summary

This Appellate Division decision affirms a Kings County Supreme Court judgment convicting the defendant of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree following a guilty plea. The court holds that the defendant’s knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his challenges to the denial of a suppression motion, the constitutionality of the conviction under New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, and the alleged excessiveness of his sentence.

Court
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Writing for the Court
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P.; LINDA CHRISTOPHER; CARL J. LANDICINO; JAMES P. MCCORMACK, JJ.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
April 16, 2025
Docket number
Ind. No. 73753/21
Procedural posture
Appeal from judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County convicting the appellant of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a guilty plea, and imposing sentence.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Derrick Spann v. People of the State of New York
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

appellate jurisdictioncriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal, thereby precluding appellate review of his challenges to the suppression ruling, the Bruen constitutional claim, and the sentence.

Holdings

  1. The defendant validly waived his right to appeal; consequently, appellate review of his challenges to the suppression ruling, the Bruen constitutional claim, and the sentence is precluded.

Key quotations

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal.

Factual background

Derrick Spann pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and was sentenced. He later appealed, claiming he had not waived his right to appeal, challenging the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, asserting the conviction violated the Bruen standard, and arguing the sentence was excessive. The record showed he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal.

Procedural history

The defendant pleaded guilty in Kings County Supreme Court, was sentenced, and subsequently appealed asserting waiver, suppression, constitutional, and sentencing issues.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…