Opinion
No. 715 KA 22-00597
11-15-2024
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. JEREMY MILLS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ERIN A. TRESMOND OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. MICHAEL J. KEANE, ACTING DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (APRIL J. ORLOWSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ERIN A. TRESMOND OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
MICHAEL J. KEANE, ACTING DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (APRIL J. ORLOWSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CURRAN, MONTOUR, GREENWOOD, AND HANNAH, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M. William Boller, A.J.), rendered March 11, 2022. The judgment convicted defendant upon a guilty plea of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.03 [3]), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid and that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe. We conclude that the record establishes that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Giles, 219 A.D.3d 1706, 1706 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 1039 [2023]; see generally People v Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 559-564 [2019], cert denied __U.S.__, 140 S.Ct. 2634 [2020]; People v Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256 [2006]), and we note that Supreme Court used the appropriate model colloquy with respect to the waiver of the right to appeal (see generally Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d at 567; Giles, 219 A.D.3d at 1706; People v Osgood, 210 A.D.3d 1426, 1427 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 1079 [2023]). Here, the court engaged defendant in "an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice" (Giles, 219 A.D.3d at 1707 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal precludes our review of his challenge to the severity of his sentence (see Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 255).