| People v Dames |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 07878 [122 AD3d 1336] |
| November 14, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vTerrence Dames, Appellant. |
Frank J. Nebush, Jr., Public Defender, Utica (Patrick J. Marthage of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.
Scott D. McNamara, District Attorney, Utica (Steven G. Cox of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Michael L. Dwyer, J.),rendered April 16, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, ofmanslaughter 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 manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]).Contrary to defendant's contention, his waiver of the right to appeal was knowingly,voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Barber, 117 AD3d1430, 1430 [2014]; Peoplev Durodoye, 113 AD3d 1130, 1131 [2014]). The record establishes that"defendant understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rightsautomatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty" (Barber, 117 AD3d at 1430).Although defendant's contention that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary, andintelligent survives the waiver of the right to appeal and is preserved for our review byhis motion to withdraw the plea (cf. id. at 1430-1431), it is without merit. Hisassertions at sentencing that he was innocent, under duress, and coerced into taking theplea were belied by the statements he made during the plea colloquy (see People v Leach, 119 AD3d1429, 1430 [2014]; Peoplev Williams, 90 AD3d 1546, 1547 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 978[2012]). The valid waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses his challengesto the severity of the sentence (see Lopez, 6 NY3d at 256; People vHidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). Present—Smith, J.P., Centra, Fahey,Lindley and Whalen, JJ.