People v Torres
2013 NY Slip Op 06408 [110 AD3d 1119]
October 3, 2013
Appellate Division, Third Department
As corrected through Wednesday, November 27, 2013


The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v ElijahTorres, Appellant.

[*1]Brian M. Callahan, Schenectady, for appellant.

Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Gerald A. Dwyer of counsel), forrespondent.

Stein, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (R. Sise, J.), renderedNovember 5, 2010 in Schenectady County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guiltyof the crimes of burglary in the second degree and petit larceny.

Defendant pleaded guilty to both counts of an indictment charging him with burglaryin the second degree and petit larceny and waived his right to appeal. At sentencing,defendant's request for youthful offender status was denied and he was thereaftersentenced to concurrent terms of four years plus five years of postrelease supervision onthe burglary conviction and one year on the petit larceny conviction. Defendant appeals.

We affirm. Contrary to defendant's contention, his waiver of the right to appeal wasvalid. Supreme Court distinguished the right to appeal from the rights forfeited bydefendant's guilty plea, and defendant acknowledged that he understood the appealwaiver. Further, defendant signed a written waiver in open court, which acknowledgedthat he had discussed the waiver with counsel and that he was voluntarily, knowingly andintelligently waiving his right to appeal his conviction and sentence (see People v Foote, 102 AD3d1056, 1057 [2013], lv denied 20 NY3d 1098 [2013]; People v Shaver, 92 AD3d978, 979 [2012], lv denied 18 NY3d 998 [2012]). Defendant's valid waiverof the right to appeal precludes both his claim that [*2]Supreme Court improperly denied him youthful offendertreatment (see People vBrabham, 83 AD3d 1225, 1225 [2011]; People v Cullen, 62 AD3d 1155, 1157 [2009], lvdenied 13 NY3d 795 [2009]) and his request that we exercise our interest of justicejurisdiction to grant him youthful offender status (see People v Rahim, 78 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2010]).Therefore, the judgment is affirmed.

Peters, P.J., McCarthy and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.