People v. Delrio

<div>People v Delrio - 2026 NY Slip Op 02937 <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> <header> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/nys-logo-white.svg" alt=""> </div> <div> <span>Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter</span> <nav> Court Decisions Resources About </nav> </div> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/lrb-seal.png" alt=""> </div> </header> </div> <nav> <ol> <li>Home</li> <li>All Court Decisions</li> <li>Decisions</li> </ol> </nav> <div> <div> <h1>People v Delrio</h1> <p>2026 NY Slip Op 02937</p> <p>May 12, 2026</p> <p>Appellate Division, First Department</p> <p>This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.</p> </div> <div> <p>The People of the State of New York, Respondent,</p> <p>v</p> <p>Larrel Delrio, Appellant.</p> </div> <p>Decided and Entered: May 12, 2026</p> <p>Ind. No. 73757/22|Appeal No. 6584|Case No. 2024-06557|</p> <p>Before: Renwick, P.J., Friedman, Kapnick, Pitt-Burke, O'neill Levy, JJ. </p> <div> <p>Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Laura M. McFeely of counsel), for appellant.</p> <p>Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Elizabeth T. Schmidt of counsel), for respondent.</p> </div> <span>[*1]</span> <p>Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Erika M. Edwards, J.), rendered October 21, 2024, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of two years followed by three years of postrelease supervision on the drug possession count and, as a second felony offender, to a concurrent term of 1½ to 3 years on the weapon possession count, unanimously affirmed.</p> <p>Defendant validly waived his right to appeal. The court's explanation tracked the model colloquy the Court of Appeals endorsed in <i>People v Thomas</i> (34 NY3d 545, 567 [2019], <i>cert denied</i> 589 US 1302 [2020]). "Nothing in the colloquy or written waiver suggested that defendant would forfeit his right to appellate counsel for claims that survived the waiver" (<i>People v Diallo</i>, 242 AD3d 612, 612 [1st Dept 2025] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Defendant's valid waiver forecloses review of his excessive sentence and search warrant claims (<i>see</i> <i>People v Samuels</i>, 195 AD3d 570, 570-571 [1st Dept 2021], <i>lv denied</i> 37 NY3d 1148 [2021]).</p> <p>As an alternative holding, we reject those claims on the merits. In the search warrant affidavit, the confidential informant's basis of knowledge "was established by the fact that the informant was a direct participant in a drug transaction with defendant" (<i>People v Alba</i>, 279 AD2d 313, 313 [1st Dept 2001], <i>lv denied</i> 96 NY2d 797 [2001]). The search warrant affidavit established the confidential informant's reliability by "provid[ing] specific information about how the informant had assisted the police in several ways" (<i>People v Auslander</i>, 149 AD3d 640, 640 [1st Dept 2017], <i>lv denied</i> 29 NY3d 1123 [2017]). That background was sufficient because a "verified history of success" with the confidential informant is "[a]ll that is required" to establish an informant's record of "providing accurate information" (<i>People v Calise</i>, 256 AD2d 64, 66 [1st Dept 1998], <i>lv denied</i> 93 NY2d 851 [1999]). In any event, upon conducting an in camera review of the search warrant application, we find that the search warrant was issued based on probable cause (<i>People v Bleyden</i>, 241 AD3d 1207, 1208 [1st Dept 2025], <i>lv denied</i> 44 NY3d 1050 [2025]).</p> <p>Defendant failed to preserve his claim that the court should have ordered a <i>Darden</i> hearing because he "did not contest the existence of the confidential informant or the accuracy of the police testimony supporting the warrant" (<i>People v Melendez</i>, 243 AD3d 487, 487 [1st Dept 2025]). We do not reach defendant's claim in the interest of justice. In any event, because defendant did not contest the confidential informant's</p> <p>identity, no hearing "was necessary" (<i>People v Perez</i>, 301 AD2d 434, 435 [1st Dept 2003], <i>lv denied</i> 99 NY2d 657 [2003]).</p> <p>We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER</p> <span>[*2]</span> <p>OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.</p> <p>ENTERED: May 12, 2026</p> </div> <div> <footer> <div> <p>Court Decisions</p> All Court Decisions Official Reports Service Bound Volumes Decision Search </div> <div> <p>Resources</p> RSS Feeds Style Manual Citation Tools Opinion Formatting &amp; Privacy Guidelines Opinion Selection Criteria Legal Research Portal Site Index </div> <div> <p>About</p> About our Operations Contact Us Twitter </div> <div> <p>Quick Contact Info</p> <p>17 Lodge Street</p> <p>Albany, NY 12207</p> <p>Phone: (518) 453-6900</p> </div> </footer> </div> <div> <p>Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.</p> </div> </div>