Opinion
KA 02-01738.
Decided April 30, 2004.
Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Craig J. Doran, J.), rendered August 7, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of issuing a bad check (three counts).
JOHN E. TYO, SHORTSVILLE, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
ROBBIN EGAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.
R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (JEFFREY L. TAYLOR OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
Before: PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., WISNER, HURLBUTT, SCUDDER, AND LAWTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of three counts of issuing a bad check (Penal Law § 190.05). Contrary to the contention of defendant, the waiver of her right to appeal was effective even though it was not in writing, and we conclude that the waiver was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered ( see People v. Jordan, 4 A.D.3d 796). The waiver encompasses her contention that she was deprived of her statutory right to a speedy trial pursuant to CPL 30.30 and, in any event, that contention is forfeited by the guilty plea ( see People v. Dewitt, 295 A.D.2d 937, 938, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 709, 767; People v. Grandberry, 223 A.D.2d 723, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 1020). The contention of defendant that her constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated survives her waiver of the right to appeal and her guilty plea ( see Dewitt, 295 A.D.2d at 938), but we conclude that the contention lacks merit ( see generally People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 444-445). Defendant further contends that County Court erred in reviewing the "pre-plea investigation report" before she had entered her guilty plea. That contention involves a nonconstitutional, nonjurisdictional defect that does not survive the guilty plea ( see People v. Hansen, 95 N.Y.2d 227, 231-232; People v. Fernandez, 67 N.Y.2d 686, 688) and, in any event, that contention is encompassed by the waiver of the right to appeal ( see generally People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 7-10; People v. Montes, 302 A.D.2d 610, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 564; People v. Jones, 284 A.D.2d 1010). The contentions of defendant in her pro se supplemental brief are either encompassed by her valid waiver of the right to appeal ( see generally Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 7-10), forfeited by her guilty plea ( see generally People v. Robertson, 279 A.D.2d 711, 712, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 805), based on matters outside the record, or lacking in merit.