Opinion
09-30-2016
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sarah J. CUSHMAN, Defendant–Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.).
Bridget L. Field, Rochester, for defendant-appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Nancy Gilligan of Counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Joanne M. Winslow, J.), rendered November 13, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree.
Bridget L. Field, Rochester, for defendant-appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Nancy Gilligan of Counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:In appeal Nos. 1 and 2, defendant appeals from judgments convicting her upon her respective pleas of guilty of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15[3] ) and, in appeal No. 3, she appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of burglary in the second degree (§ 140.25[2] ). All of the pleas were entered during one plea proceeding, following the denial of defendant's suppression motion concerning all of the charges. We conclude that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ). Supreme Court “ thoroughly reviewed the consequences of the waiver with defendant, after which defendant indicated that [she] understood those consequences and orally waived [her] right to appeal” (People v. Abernathy, 136 A.D.3d 1276, 1276, 24 N.Y.S.3d 540, lv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 1127, 39 N.Y.S.3d 109, 61 N.E.3d 508 ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the record establishes that the valid waiver of the right to appeal “was intended comprehensively to cover all aspects of the case” (People v. Burley, 136 A.D.3d 1404, 1404, 24 N.Y.S.3d 573, lv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 993, 38 N.Y.S.3d 104, 59 N.E.3d 1216 [internal quotation marks omitted] ), and therefore encompasses defendant's challenge to the court's 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 ). Contrary to defendant's further contention, the record also establishes that defendant waived both her right to appeal the conviction and the right to appeal the harshness of the sentence, and the valid waiver therefore forecloses defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v. Martin, 136 A.D.3d 1310, 1311, 24 N.Y.S.3d 553, lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1071, 38 N.Y.S.3d 841, 60 N.E.3d 1207 ; cf. People v. Maracle, 19 N.Y.3d 925, 928, 950 N.Y.S.2d 498, 973 N.E.2d 1272 ; see generally Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 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.
WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, PERADOTTO, and CARNI, JJ., concur.