| People v Slishevsky |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 03293 [149 AD3d 1488] |
| April 28, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JasonSlishevsky, Appellant. |
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Kristen McDermott of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.
William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Anthony F. Aloi, J.), renderedJanuary 21, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of course of sexualconduct against a child in the first degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of courseof sexual conduct against a child in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.75 [1] [b]),defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is not valid. We reject that contentionand conclude that County Court engaged defendant "in an adequate colloquy to ensure that thewaiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice" (People v Marshall, 144 AD3d1544, 1545 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Korber, 89 AD3d 1543, 1543 [2011], lvdenied 19 NY3d 864 [2012]). "[A] trial court need not engage in any particular litany whenapprising a defendant pleading guilty of the individual rights abandoned" (People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256[2006]), and "[t]he plea allocution as a whole establishes that defendant's waiver of the right toappeal was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary" (People v Brown, 281 AD2d 962, 962[2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 899 [2001]). Here, we conclude that the court "made clearthat the waiver of the right to appeal was a condition of [the] plea, not a consequence thereof, andthe record reflects that defendant understood that the waiver of the right to appeal was 'separateand distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty' " (People v Graham, 77 AD3d 1439,1439 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 920 [2010], quoting Lopez, 6 NY3d at 256). Thevalid waiver of the right to appeal forecloses our review of defendant's contention that thesentence is unduly harsh and severe (see generally Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255-256; Peoplev Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]), as well as his constitutional challenges, which in anyevent we have already determined to be without merit (see People v Slishevsky, 97 AD3d 1148, 1151 [2012], lv denied20 NY3d 1015 [2013]). Present—Carni, J.P., Lindley, DeJoseph, Troutman andScudder, JJ.