Opinion
11-10-2016
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Donald BRIDGES, Defendant–Appellant.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Robert L. Kemp of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Michael J. Flaherty, Jr., Acting District Attorney, Buffalo (Danielle E. Smith of Counsel), for Respondent.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Robert L. Kemp of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Michael J. Flaherty, Jr., Acting District Attorney, Buffalo (Danielle E. Smith of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, DeJOSEPH, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sexual act in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.50[3] ), sexual abuse in the first degree (§ 130.65[3] ), and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10[1] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court engaged him in “an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v. James, 71 A.D.3d 1465, 1465, 898 N.Y.S.2d 391 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Tyo, 140 A.D.3d 1697, 1698, 31 N.Y.S.3d 732 ), and the waiver “was not rendered invalid based on the court's failure to require defendant to articulate the waiver in his own words” (People v. Dozier, 59 A.D.3d 987, 987, 872 N.Y.S.2d 317, lv.
denied 12 N.Y.3d 815, 881 N.Y.S.2d 23, 908 N.E.2d 931 ; see People v. Gast, 114 A.D.3d 1270, 1270, 980 N.Y.S.2d 221, lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 1198, 986 N.Y.S.2d 419, 9 N.E.3d 914 ). Contrary to defendant's further contention, the record establishes that the waiver of the right to appeal was “ ‘intended comprehensively to cover all aspects of the case’ ” (People v. Fisher, 94 A.D.3d 1435, 1435, 942 N.Y.S.2d 837, lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 973, 950 N.Y.S.2d 356, 973 N.E.2d 766 ). Defendant's waiver encompasses his challenges to the suppression ruling (see People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 342, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ; People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754 ), and to the severity of the sentence (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.