| People v McNew |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 03134 [117 AD3d 1491] |
| May 2, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vShawn A. McNew, Appellant. |
Kathleen E. Casey, Barker, for defendant-appellant.
Michael J. Violante, District Attorney, Lockport (Thomas H. Brandt of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Matthew J. Murphy, III, J.),rendered July 9, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, ofattempted criminal sexual act in the first degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimouslyaffirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea ofguilty of attempted criminal sexual act in the first degree (Penal Law§§ 110.00, 130.50 [2]). Contrary to defendant's contention, his waiverof the right to appeal was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d248, 256 [2006]; People vPratt, 77 AD3d 1337, 1337 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 955 [2010]). Thevalid waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to CountyCourt's suppression ruling (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; People v Rodriguez, 111 AD3d1310, 1310 [2013]), and the severity of the sentence (see Lopez, 6 NY3d at255-256). Contrary to defendant's further contention, we conclude that his guilty pleawas knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. Defendant's assertions that he didnot have sufficient time to consider the plea offer and that he was coerced into taking theplea because he believed that the People would pursue charges against his son are beliedby his statements during the plea colloquy (see People v Allen, 99 AD3d 1252, 1252 [2012]). Inaddition, we note that " 'a plea agreement is not inherently coercive or invalidsimply because it affords a benefit to a loved one, as long as the plea itself is knowingly,voluntarily and intelligently made' " (People v Capoccetta, 60 AD3d 1382, 1382 [2009], lvdenied 13 NY3d 858 [2009]). Finally, we note that the certificate of convictionincorrectly recites that defendant was convicted of attempted criminal sexual act underPenal Law §§ 110.00 and 130.50 (1), and it must therefore beamended to reflect that he was convicted under Penal Law §§ 110.00and 130.50 (2) (see generally People v
Saxton
, 32 AD3d 1286, 1286-1287). Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra,Fahey, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.