People v Williams
2008 NY Slip Op 02370 [49 AD3d 1281]
March 14, 2008
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
As corrected through Wednesday, May 14, 2008


The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lyle Williams,Appellant.

[*1]The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Timothy P. Murphy of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.

Frank J. Clark, District Attorney, Buffalo (Shawn P. Hennessy of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Timothy J. Drury, J.), rendered June 14,2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the seconddegree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty ofrobbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [b]). The record establishes thatCounty Court asked defendant during the plea colloquy, "Do you also as part of your plea ofguilty waive your right to appeal any and all issues?" We agree with defendant that the court'squestion was misleading because it implied that "the right to appeal is automatically extinguishedupon entry of a guilty plea" (People vMoyett, 7 NY3d 892, 893 [2006]; see People v Billingslea, 6 NY3d 248, 257[2006]). We conclude, however, that the waiver by defendant of the right to appeal is validbecause the record establishes that the court otherwise properly conveyed to defendant "thedistinction between the right to appeal and other trial rights forfeited incident to a guilty plea"(Moyett, 7 NY3d at 893).

The contentions of defendant with respect to the court's suppression ruling areencompassed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d831, 833 [1999]) and in any event, those contentions lack merit. The police had reasonablesuspicion to believe that defendant was involved in the robbery and thus were entitled to detainhim in order to conduct a showup identification procedure (see People v Foster, 85 NY2d1012, 1014 [1995]; People vMartinez, 39 AD3d 1159, 1160 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 867 [2007]), and theshowup identification procedure was not unduly suggestive (see People v Delarosa, 28 AD3d 1186 [2006], lv denied 7NY3d 811 [2006]; People vMatthews, 24 AD3d 1306 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 850 [2006]).Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Lunn, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.