| People v Branch |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02273 [49 AD3d 1206] |
| March 14, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Todd A.Branch, Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.) |
—[*1] William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Joseph E. Fahey, J.), renderedFebruary 17, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of recklessendangerment in the first degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon hisplea of guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.25) and, inappeal No. 2, he appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminalpossession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 [former (4)]). Contrary to thecontention of defendant, the single plea colloquy for both pleas establishes that his waiver of theright to appeal was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent (see People v Lococo, 92 NY2d825, 827 [1998]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 280 [1992]; People v Williams, 39 AD3d 1200[2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 853 [2007]). The further contention of defendant that the pleaswere not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered because he did not recite theunderlying facts of the crimes "is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the pleaallocution[s] . . . , [which] is encompassed by the valid waiver of the right toappeal" (People v Wilson, 38 AD3d1348 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 927 [2007]; People v Williams, 35 AD3d 1273, 1274 [2006], lv denied8 NY3d 928 [2007]). Defendant also failed to preserve that contention for our review, and thiscase does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People vLopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; Wilson, 38 AD3d 1348 [2007]; Williams,35 AD3d at 1274). Finally, the challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence in eachappeal is encompassed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248,255 [2006]; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). Present—Scudder, P.J.,Martoche, Centra, Fahey and Peradotto, JJ.