Opinion
54 KA 16–00214
02-02-2018
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert D. WRIGHT, Defendant–Appellant.
THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (CAITLIN M. CONNELLY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. JOSEPH V. CARDONE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ALBION (KATHERINE BOGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (CAITLIN M. CONNELLY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
JOSEPH V. CARDONE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ALBION (KATHERINE BOGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Memorandum:On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the first degree ( Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.30[4] ), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid. We reject that contention. To the contrary, we conclude that "the plea colloquy here was sufficient because the right to appeal was adequately described without lumping it into the panoply of rights normally forfeited upon a guilty plea" ( People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 341, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 [2015] ). Furthermore, the record establishes that defendant's "plea and waiver of his right to appeal were knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made, with the advice of counsel, and the waiver was manifestly intended to cover all aspects of the case" ( People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754 [1999] ). Consequently, defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his contention that County Court should have suppressed certain evidence (see People v. Goodwin, 147 A.D.3d 1352, 1352, 46 N.Y.S.3d 448 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1032, 62 N.Y.S.3d 301, 84 N.E.3d 973 [2017]; see generally Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d at 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754 ), as well as his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255–256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006] ; People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 737, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46 [1998] ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.