Summary
holding that a "detailed written waiver" could overcome "ambiguity" in the waiver colloquy
Summary of this case from People v. ThomasOpinion
Decided June 13, 2006.
APPEAL, by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered September 26, 2005. The Appellate Division affirmed a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gustin L. Reichbach, J.), imposed following defendant's conviction, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the first degree (two counts), attempted rape in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree and at-tempted assault in the first degree.
People v. Ramos, 21 AD3d 1125, affirmed.
Appellate Advocates, New York City ( Lynn W.L. Fahey of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn ( Joyce Slevin of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Chief Judge KAYE and Judges G.B. SMITH, CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT, GRAFFEO, READ and R.S. SMITH concur.
OPINION OF THE COURT
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant's waiver of his right to appeal was effective. Even if there were any ambiguity in the sentencing court's colloquy, defendant executed a detailed written waiver, distinguishing this case from People v. Billingslea (6 NY3d 248, 257 [2006]), in which the sentencing court's colloquy was "accompanied by nothing other than defendant's one-word response to the question whether she understood the conditions of her plea." In this case, defendant's written waiver stated that defendant had the right to appeal, explained the appellate process and confirmed that defense counsel fully advised him of the right to take an appeal under the laws of the State of New York. The record therefore establishes that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.