Opinion
09-29-2017
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Vincent A. WALTERS, Defendant–Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.).
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Drew R. Dubrin of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Nancy Gilligan of Counsel), for Respondent.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Drew R. Dubrin of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Nancy Gilligan of Counsel), for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of manslaughter in the first degree ( Penal Law § 125.20 [1] ) and, in appeal No. 2, he appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his guilty plea of robbery in the first degree (§ 160.15[3] ). In both appeals, defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his contention that County Court erred in refusing to suppress his statements to police (see People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754 ; People v. Lynn, 144 A.D.3d 1491, 1492, 40 N.Y.S.3d 685, lv. denied 28 N.Y.3d 1186, 52 N.Y.S.3d 712, 75 N.E.3d 104 ; People v. Rosado, 26 A.D.3d 891, 892, 808 N.Y.S.2d 523, lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 838, 814 N.Y.S.2d 86, 847 N.E.2d 383 ), as well as his contention that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255–256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ; People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 737, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46 ; People v. Morales, 148 A.D.3d 1638, 1639, 51 N.Y.S.3d 298, lv. denied 29 N.Y.3d 1083, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d ––– –).
Although defendant's contention in both appeals that the pleas were not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered survives his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Green, 122 A.D.3d 1342, 1343, 995 N.Y.S.2d 897 ), that contention is not preserved for our review (see People v. Darling, 125 A.D.3d 1279, 1279, 1 N.Y.S.3d 717, lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 1071, 12 N.Y.S.3d 622, 34 N.E.3d 373 ). Contrary to defendant's further contention, his youthful age, on its own, did not deny him the capacity either to plead guilty or to subsequently seek to withdraw his pleas such that the preservation rule should not apply (see generally People v. Peque, 22 N.Y.3d 168, 182, 980 N.Y.S.2d 280, 3 N.E.3d 617 ; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665–666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ). In any event, the record establishes that defendant's pleas were knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see Green, 122 A.D.3d at 1343, 995 N.Y.S.2d 897 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, DeJOSEPH, NEMOYER, and WINSLOW, JJ., concur.