Opinion
547 KA 15–00982
04-27-2018
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Leon D. WRIGHT, Defendant–Appellant.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANET C. SOMES OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O'BRIEN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANET C. SOMES OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O'BRIEN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, AND NEMOYER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Memorandum:
On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree ( Penal Law § 130.75[1][b] ), defendant contends that his sentence is unduly harsh and severe. We agree with the People that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal. 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. Mills, 151 A.D.3d 1744, 1745, 57 N.Y.S.3d 298 [4th Dept. 2017], lv. denied 29 N.Y.3d 1131, 64 N.Y.S.3d 681, 86 N.E.3d 573 [2017] ; see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006] ), and the oral waiver was buttressed by a written waiver executed by defendant and defense counsel (see People v. Gaines, 159 A.D.3d 1389, 1390, 72 N.Y.S.3d 297 [4th Dept. 2018] ). We conclude that the valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentence (see Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 255, 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 [1998] ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.