| People v Ripley |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 03338 [94 AD3d 1554] |
| April 27, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v ChristopherRipley, Appellant. |
—[*1] Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Michelle L. Cianciosa of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M. William Boller, A.J.),rendered July 2, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attemptedburglary in the second 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 ofattempted burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]). Wereject defendant's contention that he did not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waive hisright to appeal. Contrary to defendant's contention, Supreme Court "engage[d] the defendant inan adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing andvoluntary choice" (People v Wright,66 AD3d 1334 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 912 [2009] [internal quotation marksomitted]). Further, the record as a whole establishes "that the defendant understood that the rightto appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty"(People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248,256 [2006]; see People v Korber, 89AD3d 1543, 1543 [2011]). Contrary to defendant's further contention, a "waiver of the rightto appeal [is] not rendered invalid based on the court's failure to require [the] defendant toarticulate the waiver in his [or her] own words" (People v Dozier, 59 AD3d 987, 987 [2009], lv denied 12NY3d 815 [2009]; see People vThompson, 70 AD3d 1319, 1319-1320 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 845 [2010],reconsideration denied 15 NY3d 810 [2010]; People v Ludlow, 42 AD3d 941, 942 [2007]). In addition,defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is not invalid on the ground that the court did notspecifically advise defendant that his general waiver of the right to appeal encompassed anychallenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 736-737[1998]; see generally People v Eron,79 AD3d 1774, 1775 [2010];People v Tantao, 41 AD3d 1274, 1275 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 882 [2007]).
Defendant's contention that the court abused its discretion in denying his request for youthfuloffender status is encompassed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Farewell, 90 AD3d1502, 1502 [2011]; People vHarris, 77 AD3d 1326 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 743 [2011]).Present—Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.