Opinion
02-10-2017
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William D. GIBSON, Jr., Defendant–Appellant.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Jane I. Yoon of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Scott Myles of Counsel), for Respondent.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Jane I. Yoon of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Scott Myles of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CURRAN, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a guilty plea of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03[3] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, his waiver of the right to appeal is valid (see generally People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ; People v. Weinstock, 129 A.D.3d 1663, 1663, 11 N.Y.S.3d 782, lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 1012, 20 N.Y.S.3d 552, 42 N.E.3d 222 ). The " ‘plea colloquy, together with the written waiver of the right to appeal, adequately apprised defendant that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty’ " (People v. Williams, 132 A.D.3d 1291, 1291, 17 N.Y.S.3d 360, lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 1151, 32 N.Y.S.3d 65, 51 N.E.3d 576 ). We reject defendant's contention that the written waiver of appeal is unenforceable because it contained certain nonwaivable rights. "Any nonwaivable [rights] purportedly encompassed by the waiver ‘are excluded from the scope of the waiver [and] the remainder of the waiver is valid and enforceable’ " (People v. Neal, 56 A.D.3d 1211, 1211, 867 N.Y.S.2d 612, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 761, 876 N.Y.S.2d 712, 904 N.E.2d 849 ; see Williams, 132 A.D.3d at 1291, 17 N.Y.S.3d 360 ). Defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to County Court's suppression ruling (see People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754 ; Williams, 132 A.D.3d at 1291, 17 N.Y.S.3d 360 ; Weinstock, 129 A.D.3d at 1663, 11 N.Y.S.3d 782 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.