People of the State of New York v. Souleymane Diaby
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal procedure—suppression of evidence and validity of appeal waiver; whether a denial “with leave to renew” is an “order finally denying a motion to suppress” under New York Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 710.70(2) [rule allowing appeal of an order finally denying suppression notwithstanding a guilty plea].
Supreme Court summarily denied a Mapp/Dunaway suppression hearing, stating no property was taken from the defendant’s person or from a place where he had a legitimate expectation of privacy, and denied the motion “with leave to renew.”
The appellate court held the appeal waiver invalid and rejected the summary denial of a suppression hearing, remitting for a Mapp/Dunaway hearing and holding the appeal in abeyance.
Defendant’s motion alleged specific, conflicting facts about the police approach and chase that warranted a hearing; and the denial “with leave to renew” was sufficiently final under CPL 710.70(2) because no specific further submissions were contemplated, preserving the suppression issue despite the guilty plea.
Background
Defendant was charged with second-degree criminal possession of a weapon after police alleged he discarded a ghost handgun while fleeing in the early hours of August 21, 2021. Officers claimed they observed him cross the street away from their marked car while holding his waistband. In his omnibus motion, defendant sought suppression and a Mapp/Dunaway hearing, asserting he simply crossed the street, did not grab his waistband, and dropped the gun only as a spontaneous response to an unlawful approach and chase lacking reasonable suspicion. The court summarily denied a hearing, stating no property was taken from his person or a place with a legitimate expectation of privacy, but added “leave to renew.” After additional disclosures from the People, defendant did not renew and later pleaded guilty to attempted second-degree weapon possession with a five-year sentence as a second violent felony offender. The appeal waiver colloquy incorrectly stated he could not challenge the search and seizure on appeal because of the plea.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court denied the suppression motion without a hearing on the ground that no property was seized from defendant’s person or a protected area, denying “with leave to renew upon a showing of sufficient factual allegations.” Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty following an erroneous appeal-waiver colloquy that suggested suppression issues were forfeited by his plea.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division found the appeal waiver invalid and held that defendant was entitled to a Mapp/Dunaway hearing because his motion set forth a detailed suppression theory creating factual disputes. It further held that the summary denial “with leave to renew” was final for purposes of CPL 710.70(2) under the circumstances, distinguishing cases where further specific submissions were contemplated. The court held the appeal in abeyance and remitted for a suppression hearing.
Legal Significance
The decision clarifies that a summary denial of suppression “with leave to renew” can constitute a final order under CPL 710.70(2) when no specific additional submissions are required, preserving suppression issues for appellate review even after a guilty plea. It also reiterates that an appeal waiver is invalid if it erroneously suggests that a guilty plea forecloses appellate review of suppression rulings, and underscores that detailed, conflicting factual allegations concerning police conduct warrant a Mapp/Dunaway hearing.
A suppression motion denied “with leave to renew” may still be a final order under CPL 710.70(2), preserving appellate review after a guilty plea; appeal waivers must not misstate that suppression challenges are forfeited by the plea, and factual disputes about police conduct require a Mapp/Dunaway hearing.