Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Alex R. Renzi, J.), rendered April 18, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, SCONIERS, AND PINE, JJ.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree (Penal Law § 220.21 ). We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in failing to address his requests to proceed pro se. "Defendant never made an unequivocal invocation of his right of self-representation because each of his requests to proceed pro se was made in the context of a request for substitution of counsel" (People v McClam, 297 AD2d 514, 514, lv denied 99 NY2d 537; see also People v Caswell, 56 AD3d 1300, 1301-1302, lv denied 11 NY3d 923, 12 NY3d 781; see generally People v Gillian, 8 NY3d 85, 88).
We conclude that "[d]efendant forfeited the right to our review of [his further] contention . . . that the court should have suppressed evidence seized [from his residence] inasmuch as he pleaded guilty before the court determined whether suppression was warranted" (People v Graham, 42 AD3d 933, 933-934, lv denied 9 NY3d 876). "A guilty plea generally results in a forfeiture of the right to appellate review of any non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings' " (People v Powless, 66 AD3d 1353, quoting People v Fernandez, 67 NY2d 686, 688). Although a defendant convicted upon a plea of guilty may seek review of "[a]n order finally denying a motion to suppress evidence" (CPL 710.70 ) upon an appeal from the judgment of conviction, no such order was issued in this case.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw ...