Opinion
05-05-2017
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert J. PROPST, also known as Robert Joseph Propst, also known as Robert Propst, Defendant–Appellant.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Timothy P. Murphy of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Lawrence Friedman, District Attorney, Batavia (William G. Zickl of Counsel), for Respondent.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Timothy P. Murphy of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Lawrence Friedman, District Attorney, Batavia (William G. Zickl of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, DeJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 ), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because it was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. We reject that contention. The record establishes that County Court engaged defendant "in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice" (People v. Carr, 147 A.D.3d 1506, 1506, 47 N.Y.S.3d 561 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Furthermore, the plea colloquy, together with the written waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Gibson, 147 A.D.3d 1507, 1507, 47 N.Y.S.3d 612 ; see generally People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d 737, 738, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222 ), adequately apprised defendant that "the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty" (People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ; see Carr, 147 A.D.3d at 1506, 47 N.Y.S.3d 561 ). The valid waiver of the right to appeal with respect to both the conviction and the sentence forecloses defendant's challenge to the severity of his sentence (see Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 255–256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ; Carr, 147 A.D.3d at 1506, 47 N.Y.S.3d 561 ; cf. People v. Maracle, 19 N.Y.3d 925, 928, 950 N.Y.S.2d 498, 973 N.E.2d 1272 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.