| People v Montgomery |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04599 [63 AD3d 1635] |
| June 5, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v ThomasMontgomery, Appellant. |
—[*1] Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (J. Michael Marion of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.),rendered November 27, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, ofmanslaughter in the first degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty ofmanslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]), defendant challenges thevalidity of his waiver of the right to appeal. We reject that challenge (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248,256 [2006]; People v Washington,53 AD3d 1120 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 796 [2008]). Although the contention ofdefendant that Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to withdraw the plea survives hisvalid waiver of the right to appeal, that contention is without merit. The contention of defendantthat the plea was coerced is belied by his statements during the plea colloquy (see People v Gimenez, 59 AD3d1088 [2009]; People v Farley,34 AD3d 1229 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 880 [2007]). In addition, the record beliesthe further contention of defendant that he was misled with respect to his potential sentence priorto entering the plea (see generally People v Elmore [appeal No. 2], 57 AD3d 1507[2008]). Further, we reject the contention of defendant that he should have been permitted towithdraw his plea based on defense counsel's incorrect statement that he could withdraw his pleaat any time before sentencing. The issue whether defense counsel made the alleged statementpresented a credibility issue that the court was entitled to resolve against defendant afteraffording him a reasonable opportunity to be heard (see People v Dozier, 12 AD3d 1176 [2004]; People v Stephens, 6 AD3d 1123,1124 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 663, 682 [2004]; see also People v Irvine, 42 AD3d 949 [2007], lv denied 9NY3d 962 [2007]).
Although the further contention of defendant that the court failed to apprehend the extent ofits discretion to impose a lesser period of postrelease supervision also survives his waiver of theright to appeal, that contention is without merit (see People v Burgess, 23 AD3d 1095 [2005], lv denied 6NY3d 810 [2006]; People v Tyes, 9AD3d 899 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 682 [2004]; People v Porter, 9 AD3d 887[2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 710 [2004]; cf. People v Stanley, 309 AD2d 1254[2003]). Finally, defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentence is encompassed by thewaiver by defendant of the right to appeal (see Lopez, 6 NY3d at 256; People vHidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Fahey, Carniand Pine, JJ.