| People v Hyson |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 07596 [111 AD3d 1387] |
| November 15, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vKenneth T. Hyson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Nancy Gilligan of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Alex R. Renzi, J.), renderedJuly 8, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery inthe 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 ofguilty of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [b]). Contrary todefendant's contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily andintelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]),and that valid waiver forecloses any challenge by defendant to the severity of thesentence (see id. at 255; People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998];People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). We reject defendant's furthercontention that his right to counsel was violated when County Court denied his requestfor a new attorney without making an inquiry into his reasons for the request.Defendant's request for a new attorney was wholly lacking in "specific factual allegationsof 'serious complaints about counsel' " (People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 100 [2010]). We note in anyevent that, at the next court date following defendant's request for a new attorney, whichwas to be a conditional examination of the elderly victim, defendant accepted a plea offerwith sentencing consideration that was more favorable than the prior offer. Indeed, basedon the court's statements at sentencing, it appears that the sentence was considerablymore favorable than the sentence that the court would have imposed but for thesentencing parameters agreed to as part of the plea. Present—Fahey, J.P.,Peradotto, Lindley, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.