Opinion
2012-11-16
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Christopher T. Walker, Jr., Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Sara S. Sperrazza, J.), rendered May 26, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the first degree. Thomas J. Eoannou, Buffalo (Jeremy D. Schwartz of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Michael J. Violante, District Attorney, Lockport (Laura T. Bittner of Counsel), for Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Sara S. Sperrazza, J.), rendered May 26, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the first degree.
Thomas J. Eoannou, Buffalo (Jeremy D. Schwartz of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Michael J. Violante, District Attorney, Lockport (Laura T. Bittner of Counsel), for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted robbery in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.15[3] ), defendant contends that County Court abused its discretion in denying his recusal motion made at sentencing. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's contention survives his valid waiver of the right to appeal ( cf. People v. Mahipat, 49 A.D.3d 1243, 1244, 852 N.Y.S.2d 872), we conclude that it is without merit. The court was not required to recuse itself from sentencing defendant based on the fact that it had presided over the codefendant's trial ( see People v. Bennett, 238 A.D.2d 898, 899–900, 660 N.Y.S.2d 772,lv. denied90 N.Y.2d 855, 661 N.Y.S.2d 181, 683 N.E.2d 1055,90 N.Y.2d 890, 662 N.Y.S.2d 433, 685 N.E.2d 214,cert. denied524 U.S. 918, 118 S.Ct. 2302, 141 L.Ed.2d 161). “Moreover, none of [the c]ourt's remarks ... was indicative of bias against defendant and, therefore, recusal was not warranted on [that] basis” ( People v. Casey, 61 A.D.3d 1011, 1014, 876 N.Y.S.2d 532,lv. denied12 N.Y.3d 913, 884 N.Y.S.2d 694, 912 N.E.2d 1075;see People v. Johnson, 294 A.D.2d 908, 908, 742 N.Y.S.2d 751,lv. denied98 N.Y.2d 677, 746 N.Y.S.2d 466, 774 N.E.2d 231). Finally, defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his contention concerning the denial of his request for youthful offender status ( see People v. Rush, 94 A.D.3d 1449, 1449, 942 N.Y.S.2d 844,lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 967, 950 N.Y.S.2d 119, 973 N.E.2d 217;People v. Farewell, 90 A.D.3d 1502, 1502, 934 N.Y.S.2d 884,lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 957, 944 N.Y.S.2d 486, 967 N.E.2d 711).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.