Opinion
2013-12-27
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kyle McCLAIN, Defendant–Appellant.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Karen Russo–McLaughlin of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Michael J. Hillery of Counsel), for Respondent.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Karen Russo–McLaughlin of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Michael J. Hillery of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, VALENTINO AND WHALEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03[3] ), unlawful possession of marihuana (§ 221.05), and failure to obey a stop sign (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1172 [a] ). We reject defendant's contention that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid. “[T]rial courts are not required to engage in any particular litany during an allocution in order to obtain a valid guilty plea in which defendant waives a plethora of rights, including the right to appeal” (People v. Mitchell, 93 A.D.3d 1173, 1173–1174, 940 N.Y.S.2d 393, lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 999, 951 N.Y.S.2d 475, 975 N.E.2d 921 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Fisher, 94 A.D.3d 1435, 1435, 942 N.Y.S.2d 837, lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 973, 950 N.Y.S.2d 356, 973 N.E.2d 766). The record establishes that defendant waived his right to appeal in order to secure a sentencing commitment, and Supreme Court properly “ ‘describ[ed] the nature of the right being waived without lumping that right into the panoply of trial rights automatically forfeited upon pleading guilty’ ” (People v. Tabb, 81 A.D.3d 1322, 1322, 916 N.Y.S.2d 567, lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 900, 926 N.Y.S.2d 35, 949 N.E.2d 983, quoting People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 257, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145). Defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the court's suppression rulings ( see Mitchell, 93 A.D.3d at 1174, 940 N.Y.S.2d 393).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.