Opinion
2012-04-27
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Christopher RIPLEY, Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M. William Boller, A.J.), rendered July 2, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree.The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Kristin M. Preve of Counsel), for defendant-appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Michelle L. Cianciosa of Counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M. William Boller, A.J.), rendered July 2, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree.The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Kristin M. Preve of Counsel), for defendant-appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Michelle L. Cianciosa of Counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25[2] ). We reject defendant's contention that he did not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waive his right to appeal. Contrary to defendant's contention, Supreme 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. Wright, 66 A.D.3d 1334, 885 N.Y.S.2d 794, lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 912, 895 N.Y.S.2d 326, 922 N.E.2d 915 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Further, the record as a whole establishes “that the defendant understood 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 people v. korber, 89 a.d.3d 1543, 1543, 932 n.y.s.2d 780). contrary to defendant's further contention, a “waiver of the right to appeal [is] not rendered invalid based on the court's failure to require [the] defendant to articulate the waiver in his [or her] own words” ( People v. Dozier, 59 A.D.3d 987, 987, 872 N.Y.S.2d 317, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 815, 881 N.Y.S.2d 23, 908 N.E.2d 931; see People v. Thompson, 70 A.D.3d 1319, 1319–1320, 893 N.Y.S.2d 780, lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 845, 901 N.Y.S.2d 151, 927 N.E.2d 572, 15 N.Y.3d 810, 908 N.Y.S.2d 170, 934 N.E.2d 904; People v. Ludlow, 42 A.D.3d 941, 942, 840 N.Y.S.2d 859). In addition, defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is not invalid on the ground that the court did not specifically advise defendant that his general waiver of the right to appeal encompassed any challenge to the severity of the sentence ( see People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 736–737, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46; see generally People v. Eron, 79 A.D.3d 1774, 1775, 914 N.Y.S.2d 849; People v. Tantao, 41 A.D.3d 1274, 1275, 838 N.Y.S.2d 757, lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 882, 842 N.Y.S.2d 794, 874 N.E.2d 761).
Defendant's contention that the court abused its discretion in denying his request for youthful offender status is encompassed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v. Farewell, 90 A.D.3d 1502, 1502, 934 N.Y.S.2d 884; People v. Harris, 77 A.D.3d 1326, 907 N.Y.S.2d 893, lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 743, 917 N.Y.S.2d 625, 942 N.E.2d 1050).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.