Opinion
1075 17–02142
11-08-2019
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Shane STEVENSON, Defendant–Appellant.
THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (KRISTIN M. PREVE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. SHANE STEVENSON, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT PRO SE. JOHN J. FLYNN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (ASHLEY R. LOWRY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (KRISTIN M. PREVE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
SHANE STEVENSON, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT PRO SE.
JOHN J. FLYNN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (ASHLEY R. LOWRY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of two counts of murder in the second degree ( Penal Law § 125.25[1] ) arising from the fatal strangulation of his girlfriend and her 7–year–old son. We reject defendant's contention in his main and pro se supplemental briefs that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid. During the plea colloquy, Supreme Court provided defendant with "an extensive and detailed description of the proposed waiver of the right to appeal before securing his consent thereto" ( People v. Thomas , 158 A.D.3d 1191, 1191, 67 N.Y.S.3d 878 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1088, 79 N.Y.S.3d 110, 103 N.E.3d 1257 [2018] ), and we conclude that "the record establishes that defendant understood that he was waiving his right to appeal both the conviction and the sentence" ( People v. Williams , 160 A.D.3d 1470, 1471, 72 N.Y.S.3d 906 [4th Dept. 2018] ; see People v. Watson , 174 A.D.3d 1541, 1541, 103 N.Y.S.3d 894 [4th Dept. 2019] ). Although defendant did not know the specific sentence that would be imposed at the time of the waiver, the court advised him of the maximum sentence that could be imposed (see People v. Lococo , 92 N.Y.2d 825, 827, 677 N.Y.S.2d 57, 699 N.E.2d 416 [1998] ). We thus conclude that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary (see generally People v. Bradshaw , 18 N.Y.3d 257, 264, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 [2011] ; People v. Lopez , 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006] ). That valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses defendant's challenge in his main and pro se supplemental briefs to the severity of the sentence (see Lococo , 92 N.Y.2d at 827, 677 N.Y.S.2d 57, 699 N.E.2d 416 ; People v. Hidalgo , 91 N.Y.2d 733, 737, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46 [1998] ).
We reject defendant's further contention in his pro se supplemental brief that the imposition of consecutive sentences was illegal. Although that contention survives the valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. McLellan , 82 A.D.3d 1668, 1669, 919 N.Y.S.2d 447 [4th Dept. 2011] ), the imposition of consecutive sentences was permissible here because defendant committed two separate and distinct homicidal acts (see generally People v. McKnight , 16 N.Y.3d 43, 48–50, 917 N.Y.S.2d 594, 942 N.E.2d 1019 [2010] ).
We have considered the remaining contention in defendant's pro se supplemental brief and conclude that it does not require reversal or modification of the judgment.