Opinion
2013-12-27
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Steven TALLEY, Defendant–Appellant.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Robert L. Kemp of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Donna A. Milling of Counsel), for Respondent.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Robert L. Kemp of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Donna A. Milling of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY AND SCONIERS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 220.09[1] ), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is unenforceable and that his sentence is unduly harsh and severe. The record demonstrates, however, that 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. Burt, 101 A.D.3d 1729, 1730, 955 N.Y.S.2d 906, lv. denied20 N.Y.3d 1060, 962 N.Y.S.2d 610, 985 N.E.2d 920 [internal quotation marks omitted] ), and that defendant also signed a written waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v. Pulley, 107 A.D.3d 1560, 1561, 966 N.Y.S.2d 709, lv. denied21 N.Y.3d 1076, 974 N.Y.S.2d 325, 997 N.E.2d 150). We thus conclude that the waiver is enforceable and that defendant is thereby foreclosed from challenging the severity of his sentence ( see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145; People v. Suttles, 107 A.D.3d 1467, 1468, 965 N.Y.S.2d 904, lv. denied21 N.Y.3d 1046, 972 N.Y.S.2d 543, 995 N.E.2d 859).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.