From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Marshall

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jul 11, 2013
108 A.D.3d 884 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-07-11

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Pamela L. MARSHALL, Appellant.

G. Scott Walling, Queensbury, for appellant. Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Jaime A. Douthat of counsel), for respondent.


G. Scott Walling, Queensbury, for appellant. Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Jaime A. Douthat of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., LAHTINEN, STEIN and EGAN JR., JJ.

PETERS, P.J.

Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (Ryan, J.), rendered January 9, 2012, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and (2) from a judgment of said court, rendered January 9, 2012, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the second degree.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant waived indictment and pleaded guilty to two superior court informations, one charging her with grand larceny in the fourth degree and the other charging her with robbery in the second degree. In accordance with the plea agreement, defendant was thereafter sentenced to consecutive prison terms of 1 1/2 to 3 years and 6 1/2 years, respectively. Defendant now appeals both judgments of conviction.

We find that defendant made a valid waiver of her right to appeal. County Court distinguished the waiver of the right to appeal from the rights automatically forfeited upon entry of a guilty plea. Defendant indicated that she understood that she was agreeing to waive this right as a part of the negotiated plea agreement and she executed a written waiver ( see People v. Baliraj, 101 A.D.3d 1175, 1176, 954 N.Y.S.2d 711 [2012],lv. denied21 N.Y.3d 941, 968 N.Y.S.2d 3, 990 N.E.2d 137 [2013];People v. Jackson, 48 A.D.3d 885, 885, 851 N.Y.S.2d 687 [2008],lv. denied10 N.Y.3d 960, 863 N.Y.S.2d 144, 893 N.E.2d 450 [2008] ). Defendant's sole remaining contention on this appeal, that the sentences imposed were harsh and excessive, is foreclosed by her valid waiver of the right to appeal her conviction and sentence ( see People v. Joyce, 91 A.D.3d 986, 987, 935 N.Y.S.2d 908 [2012],lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 864, 947 N.Y.S.2d 413, 970 N.E.2d 436 [2012];*410People v. Thomas, 71 A.D.3d 1231, 1233, 896 N.Y.S.2d 264 [2010],lv. denied14 N.Y.3d 893, 903 N.Y.S.2d 781, 929 N.E.2d 1016 [2010] ).

ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.

LAHTINEN, STEIN and EGAN JR., JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Marshall

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jul 11, 2013
108 A.D.3d 884 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

People v. Marshall

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Pamela L. MARSHALL…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: Jul 11, 2013

Citations

108 A.D.3d 884 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 5252
968 N.Y.S.2d 409

Citing Cases

People v. White

Contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that he made a valid waiver of the right to appeal, as the…

People v. Waldron

Defendant's challenge to the validity of his waiver of the right to appeal is unpersuasive. Our review of the…