Opinion
2012-04-27
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kadeem R. HARRIS, Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael F. Pietruszka, J.), rendered May 17, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree.The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Kristin M. Preve of Counsel), for defendant-appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Ashley R. Small of Counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael F. Pietruszka, J.), rendered May 17, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree.The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Kristin M. Preve of Counsel), for defendant-appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Ashley R. Small of Counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15[2] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal as a condition of the plea ( see generally People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145). “County Court engage[d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” ( People v. James, 71 A.D.3d 1465, 1465, 898 N.Y.S.2d 391 [internal quotation marks omitted] ), and the record establishes that he “ understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” ( Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145). Contrary to the further contention of defendant, his “monosyllabic affirmative responses to questioning by [the c]ourt do not render his [waiver] unknowing and involuntary” ( People v. Dunham, 83 A.D.3d 1423, 1424, 919 N.Y.S.2d 258, lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 794, 929 N.Y.S.2d 102, 952 N.E.2d 1097). Defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence ( see Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 255–256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145; People v. Gordon, 89 A.D.3d 1466, 932 N.Y.S.2d 410). Finally, to the extent that defendant's contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel survives his guilty plea and valid waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v. Jackson, 85 A.D.3d 1697, 1699, 925 N.Y.S.2d 746, lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 817, 929 N.Y.S.2d 806, 954 N.E.2d 97), we conclude that it lacks merit ( see generally People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.