Opinion
2014-05-2
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Chasity L. WILSON, Defendant–Appellant.
Gerard R. Roux, II, East Amherst, for Defendant–Appellant. Michael J. Violante, District Attorney, Lockport (Thomas H. Brandt of Counsel), for Respondent.
Gerard R. Roux, II, East Amherst, for Defendant–Appellant. Michael J. Violante, District Attorney, Lockport (Thomas H. Brandt of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, SCONIERS, and WHALEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of attempted burglary in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.30[2] ). Defendant failed to preserve for our review her contention that the guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered inasmuch as she failed to move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction ( see People v. Zulian, 68 A.D.3d 1731, 1732, 891 N.Y.S.2d 821,lv. denied14 N.Y.3d 894, 903 N.Y.S.2d 783, 929 N.E.2d 1018). In any event, defendant's contention that she was not competent to enter both her guilty plea and the waiver of the right to appeal are without merit. Defendant stated during the plea colloquy that she was taking prescription medication for anxiety and depression, but “[t]here was not the slightest indication that defendant was uninformed, confused or incompetent” at the time she entered the plea and the waiver of the right to appeal ( People v. Alexander, 97 N.Y.2d 482, 486, 743 N.Y.S.2d 45, 769 N.E.2d 802;see People v. Sonberg, 61 A.D.3d 1350, 1351, 878 N.Y.S.2d 845,lv. denied13 N.Y.3d 800, 887 N.Y.S.2d 549, 916 N.E.2d 444). In response to County Court's inquiry, “defendant advised the court that [s]he was thinking clearly and understood the proceedings” ( Zulian, 68 A.D.3d at 1732, 891 N.Y.S.2d 821). The valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentence ( see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255–256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145;People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 737, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.