Opinion
2013-04-26
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard BAILEY, Defendant–Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Matthew J. Murphy, III, J.), rendered June 6, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts). David J. Farrugia, Public Defender, Lockport (Mary–Jean Bowman of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Michael J. Violante, District Attorney, Lockport (Laura T. Bittner of Counsel), for Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Matthew J. Murphy, III, J.), rendered June 6, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts).
David J. Farrugia, Public Defender, Lockport (Mary–Jean Bowman of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Michael J. Violante, District Attorney, Lockport (Laura T. Bittner of Counsel), for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65[1] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal ( see generally People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145). That valid waiver forecloses defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentence ( see id. at 255, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145;see generally People v. Lococo, 92 N.Y.2d 825, 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).
In appeal No. 2, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of failing to register internet identifiers as a sex offender (Correction Law §§ 168–f [4]; 168–t). As part of his plea bargain with respect to the conviction that is the subject of appeal No. 1, defendant agreed to waive his right to appeal from the judgment of conviction in appeal No. 2. Thus, defendant's knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal in appeal No. 1 encompassed his right to appeal his conviction in appeal No. 2. That valid waiver forecloses our review of his contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Allick, 72 A.D.3d 1615, 1616, 899 N.Y.S.2d 710;People v. Dickerson, 309 A.D.2d 966, 967, 766 N.Y.S.2d 138,lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 596, 776 N.Y.S.2d 228, 808 N.E.2d 364), his challenges to various rulings made by County Court during trial ( see Allick, 72 A.D.3d at 1616, 899 N.Y.S.2d 710), his challenges to the court's suppression ruling ( see People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754), and his challenge to the severity of the sentence ( see generally Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 255, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145). Finally, to the extent that defendant contends that the sentence imposed is illegal, that contention survives his valid waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 9, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022). We conclude, however, that the sentence is legal.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.