▶ Video explainer coming soon
The appellate court upheld Taylor's conviction. It found that the trial court had clearly explained the appeal waiver was separate from the guilty plea itself, and that Taylor confirmed he understood this. The written waiver, signed after talking with his lawyer, repeated this explanation. Because the waiver was valid, it blocked his challenges to the suppression ruling and sentence. His claims about the plea's voluntariness and ineffective assistance of counsel were not properly preserved, since he never filed the right motion asking the trial court to withdraw his plea. The judgment was affirmed.
Lasmire Taylor was charged with attempted murder and criminal possession of a weapon. He asked the court to suppress certain physical evidence, but the judge denied that request after a hearing. Taylor then pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. As part of his plea deal, he agreed to waive his right to appeal. The court sentenced him, as a second felony offender, to eight years in prison plus five years of supervised release. Taylor later appealed anyway, arguing his appeal waiver wasn't valid and raising other challenges.
The main question was whether Taylor's waiver of his right to appeal was knowing, voluntary, and clearly understood. If the waiver was valid, could it block his challenges to the suppression ruling and his sentence? The court also had to decide whether his claims about the plea's voluntariness and his lawyer's performance were properly raised for review.
This case shows how appeal waivers in plea deals can limit what a defendant can challenge later. It highlights why courts look closely at whether a waiver was clearly explained and understood. It also shows why raising objections at the right time, in the trial court, matters for preserving issues on appeal.
Talk to a licensed criminal defense lawyer in New York.