| People v Nickell |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02507 [49 AD3d 1024] |
| March 20, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v RhondaNickell, Appellant. |
—[*1] James E. Conboy, District Attorney, Fonda (Charles M. Clark of counsel), forrespondent.
Spain, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Montgomery County (Catena, J.),rendered May 24, 2006, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of robbery inthe second degree.
In satisfaction of a three-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of robberyin the second degree and was sentenced to, among other things, the bargained-for term ofimprisonment of eight years to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Additionally,defendant waived her right to appeal both orally and in writing. The charges arose fromdefendant's role as the getaway driver during the armed robbery of a restaurant in the Town ofAmsterdam, Montgomery County. Claiming that her appeal waiver was invalid and her sentencewas harsh and excessive, defendant now appeals and we affirm.
Defendant claims that her waiver of appeal was invalid because, at the time of her appealwaiver, County Court did not expressly distinguish between those appellate issues that areencompassed by a valid waiver and those that survive such a waiver. It is well settled that " 'trialcourts are not required to engage in any particular litany during an allocution' " in order to obtaina valid waiver of a plethora of rights (People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999], quotingPeople v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909, 910-911 [1990]; see People v Hidalgo, 91NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; People v Muniz, 91 NY2d 570, 574-575 [1998]). Under thisguiding principle, trial courts need [*2]not expressly delineate fora defendant those appellate issues that are foreclosed by a waiver of the right to appeal, and thosethat survive, in order for the court to obtain a valid appeal waiver (see People v Kemp, 94NY2d at 833; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d at 737; People v Muniz, 91 NY2d at574-575; People v Wagoner, 6AD3d 985, 986 [2004]; People vUmber, 2 AD3d 1051, 1052 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 747 [2004]). As a result,the basis for defendant's claim of invalidity is unavailing. Consequently, inasmuch as defendant'swaiver of her right to appeal was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made, she is precludedfrom asserting her claim that her sentence is harsh and excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248,255-256 [2006]; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d at 736-737; People v Hopkins, 46 AD3d 1107,1108 [2007]).
Mercure, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.