| People v Adams |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 02989 [94 AD3d 1428] |
| April 20, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony N.Adams, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Sara S. Sperrazza, J.), rendered June10, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the firstdegree and manslaughter in the first degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty ofrobbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [3]) and manslaughter in the first degree(§ 125.20 [1]). We reject defendant's contention that his waiver of the right to appeal wasnot knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People vHidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 735 [1998]). "The responses of defendant to County Court'squestions during the plea colloquy establish that he understood the consequences of waiving theright to appeal and voluntarily waived that right" (People v Ruffins, 78 AD3d 1627, 1628 [2010]; see People v Dunham, 83 AD3d1423, 1424 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 794 [2011]). Further, the court " 'describ[ed]the nature of the right being waived without lumping that right into the panoply of trial rightsautomatically forfeited upon pleading guilty' " (People v Tabb, 81 AD3d 1322, 1322 [2011], lv denied 16NY3d 900 [2011], quoting Lopez, 6 NY3d at 257). The court also " 'made clear that thewaiver of the right to appeal was a condition of [the] plea, not a consequence thereof' " (People v McCarthy, 83 AD3d1533, 1533-1534 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 819 [2011]).
"The valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses defendant's contention concerning thedenial of his request for youthful offender status" (People v Elshabazz, 81 AD3d 1429, 1429 [2011], lv denied16 NY3d 858 [2011]; see People vHarris, 77 AD3d 1326 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 743 [2011]). The waiver,however, "does not encompass his contention with respect to the severity of the sentence. . . because the record establishes that defendant waived his right to appeal beforeCounty Court advised him of the potential periods of imprisonment that could be imposed" (People v Mingo, 38 AD3d 1270,1271 [2007]). Nonetheless, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.Present—Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Lindley and Martoche, JJ.