Opinion
2013-04-26
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jeffrey RUMSEY, Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Joseph W. Latham, J.), rendered March 3, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree and driving while intoxicated. Kathleen P. Reardon, Rochester, for Defendant–Appellant. Brooks T. Baker, District Attorney, Bath (Amanda M. Chafee of Counsel), for Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Joseph W. Latham, J.), rendered March 3, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree and driving while intoxicated.
Kathleen P. Reardon, Rochester, for Defendant–Appellant. Brooks T. Baker, District Attorney, Bath (Amanda M. Chafee of Counsel), for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511[3][a][iii] ) and driving while intoxicated (§ 1192[3] ). Contrary to the contention of defendant, we conclude that his responses during the plea colloquy and his execution of a written waiver of the right to appeal establish that he intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily waived his right to appeal ( see People v. Kulyeshie, 71 A.D.3d 1478, 1478–1479, 895 N.Y.S.2d 909,lv. denied14 N.Y.3d 889, 903 N.Y.S.2d 777, 929 N.E.2d 1012;People v. Griner, 50 A.D.3d 1557, 1558, 855 N.Y.S.2d 800,lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 737, 864 N.Y.S.2d 395, 894 N.E.2d 659;see generally People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145). Defendant's contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel does not survive his plea or his valid waiver of the right to appeal because he “failed to demonstrate that ‘the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or that defendant entered the plea because of his attorney['s] allegedly poor performance’ ” ( People v. Wright, 66 A.D.3d 1334, 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;see People v. Rizek [Appeal No. 1], 64 A.D.3d 1180, 1180, 881 N.Y.S.2d 752lv. denied13 N.Y.3d 862, 891 N.Y.S.2d 696, 920 N.E.2d 101).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.