| People v Johnson |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03704 [106 AD3d 1331] |
| May 23, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Shaheem Johnson, Also Known as Sha,Appellant. |
—[*1] P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Steven M. Sharp of counsel), forrespondent.
Stein, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lamont, J.), rendered May27, 2011 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofmanslaughter in the first degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of manslaughter in the first degreeand was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement to a prison term of 24 yearsfollowed by five years of postrelease supervision, to be served consecutively to thesentence he was already serving. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. We are unpersuaded by defendant's contention that his waiver of the rightto appeal is unenforceable. Although the appeal waiver was not mentioned when theterms of the plea agreement were initially placed on the record, during the plea colloquy,and prior to defendant pleading guilty, defendant was informed that a waiver of the rightto appeal was part of the plea bargain. The record demonstrates that Supreme Courtexplained the nature of the waiver and the distinct rights being forfeited thereby.Furthermore, defendant acknowledged, and defense counsel affirmed, that defensecounsel reviewed the written waiver with defendant. After conferring with his counsel,defendant orally waived his right to appeal and executed a [*2]written waiver in open court. In view of the foregoing, weare satisfied that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right toappeal his conviction and sentence (see People v Foote, 102 AD3d 1056, 1057 [2013], lvdenied 20 NY3d 1098 [2013]; see also People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). Givensuch valid waiver, defendant's challenges to the sentence imposed, including those in hispro se submission, are foreclosed (see People v Estrada, 102 AD3d 1064, 1065 [2013]).
Peters, P.J., Lahtinen and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.