| People v Walker |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 07810 [100 AD3d 1522] |
| November 16, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher T.Walker, Jr., Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael J. Violante, District Attorney, Lockport (Laura T. Bittner of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Sara S. Sperrazza, J.), rendered May26, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in thefirst 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 ofattempted robbery in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.15 [3]), defendantcontends that County Court abused its discretion in denying his recusal motion made atsentencing. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's contention survives his valid waiver of theright to appeal (cf. People vMahipat, 49 AD3d 1243, 1244 [2008]), we conclude that it is without merit. The courtwas not required to recuse itself from sentencing defendant based on the fact that it had presidedover the codefendant's trial (see People v Bennett, 238 AD2d 898, 899-900 [1997], lvdenied 90 NY2d 855 [1997], 90 NY2d 890 [1997], cert denied 524 US 918 [1998])."Moreover, none of [the c]ourt's remarks . . . was indicative of bias againstdefendant and, therefore, recusal was not warranted on [that] basis" (People v Casey, 61 AD3d 1011,1014 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 913 [2009]; see People v Johnson, 294 AD2d908, 908 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 677 [2002]). Finally, defendant's valid waiver of theright to appeal encompasses his contention concerning the denial of his request for youthfuloffender status (see People v Rush,94 AD3d 1449, 1449 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 967 [2012]; People v Farewell, 90 AD3d 1502,1502 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 957 [2012]). Present—Centra, J.P., Peradotto,Lindley, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.