| People v Worthy |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 10242 [46 AD3d 1382] |
| December 21, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael L.Worthy, Appellant. |
—[*1] Frank J. Clark, District Attorney, Buffalo (J. Michael Marion of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Russell P. Buscaglia, A.J.),rendered March 8, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglaryin the third degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby isunanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty ofburglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20). The contention of defendant that hisplea was coerced and thus was not knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently entered "is belied by[his] statement during the plea proceeding that [he] was not threatened, coerced or otherwiseinfluenced against [his] will into pleading guilty" (People v Beaty, 303 AD2d 965 [2003],lv denied 100 NY2d 559 [2003]; see People v Gradia, 28 AD3d 1206, 1206-1207 [2006], lvdenied 7 NY3d 756 [2006]). Defendant's conclusory and unsubstantiated claim of innocencealso is belied by his statements during the plea proceeding (see People v Kimmons, 39 AD3d 1180 [2007]; People v Jackson, 34 AD3d 1304[2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 846, 986 [2007]). Contrary to the further contention ofdefendant, the record reflects that his waiver of the right to appeal was the result of a knowingand voluntary choice (see People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 280 [1992]; People v Ludlow, 42 AD3d 941[2007]), and that waiver encompasses defendant's challenge to Supreme Court's suppressionruling (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; People v Pan Zhi Feng, 15 AD3d862 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 809 [2005]).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are withoutmerit. Present—Martoche, J.P., Smith, Centra, Peradotto and Green, JJ.