People v. Berry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department · 2025 · Criminal Law

2025 NY Slip Op 01682 (2025)

Updated August 1, 2026

Criminal Lawappeal waiverguilty pleacertificate of compliancediscovery violationsstatutory speedy trialknowing voluntary intelligentsentence challenge

Facts

Defendant was indicted on two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. On the eve of trial, he moved to invalidate the People's certificate of compliance and to have them deemed not ready for trial, arguing that discovery mandates had not been satisfied. He then pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and agreed to waive his right to appeal. County Court sentenced him, in accordance with the plea agreement, to 5 1/2 years in prison followed by 1 1/2 years of postrelease supervision.

Issue

Whether defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was valid and, if so, whether that waiver and his guilty plea barred appellate review of his sentence challenge and his claims concerning discovery violations and the certificate of compliance. The opinion also addressed whether any statutory speedy trial claim survived.

Rule

An appeal waiver is valid when the record shows that the court explained the waiver as separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited by a guilty plea, explained that certain rights survive, and the defendant confirmed understanding, including by executing and acknowledging a comprehensive written waiver. A valid appeal waiver bars a challenge to the severity of an agreed-upon sentence and precludes a statutory speedy trial claim, while an unchallenged guilty plea forfeits a claim that alleged discovery violations undermined the validity of the People's certificate of compliance.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Albany, Marcus Hale agreed to plead guilty to a reduced felony in exchange for a fixed prison term. During the plea colloquy, the judge told Marcus that the appeal waiver was separate and distinct from the rights automatically lost by pleading guilty, explained that some rights would still survive, and Marcus confirmed that he understood; he also signed a detailed written waiver after reviewing it with counsel.

If Marcus later argues that his appeal waiver was invalid, how should an appellate court rule?

Explanation. The waiver should be upheld. The governing rule is that an appeal waiver is valid when the court explains that it is separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited by a guilty plea, indicates that certain rights survive, and the defendant confirms understanding, especially where the defendant also executes and acknowledges a comprehensive written waiver reviewed with counsel. That is the record here.