| People v Mills |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 04701 [151 AD3d 1744] |
| June 9, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Edgar Mills, Appellant. |
David J. Farrugia, Public Defender, Lockport (Joseph G. Frazier of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.
Caroline A. Wojtaszek, District Attorney, Lockport (Thomas H. Brandt of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr.,A.J.), rendered August 14, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, ofrobbery in the second degree (two counts).
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty oftwo counts of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [a]). We rejectdefendant's contention that the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid. Contrary to defendant'scontention, Supreme Court "did not improperly conflate the waiver of the right to appeal withthose rights automatically forfeited by a guilty plea" (People v Bentley, 63 AD3d 1624, 1625 [2009], lv denied 13NY3d 742 [2009]; see People vBradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264 [2011]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). Moreover, the courtengaged defendant "in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was aknowing and voluntary choice" (Peoplev Burt, 101 AD3d 1729, 1730 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1060 [2013] [internalquotation marks omitted]). Defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal, which specificallyincluded a waiver of the right to challenge the severity of the sentence, encompasses hiscontention that the sentence imposed is unduly harsh and severe (see Lopez, 6 NY3d at255-256; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d925, 928 [2012]).
Inasmuch as "no mention of youthful offender status was made on the record beforedefendant waived his right to appeal, . . . defendant's valid waiver does notencompass his challenge to the court's denial of youthful offender status" (People vWeathington [appeal No. 2], 141 AD3d 1173, 1174 [2016]; see People v Matsulavage, 121 AD3d1581, 1581 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1045 [2014]). We nonetheless conclude thatthe court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant defendant youthful offender status (see People v Ford, 144 AD3d1682, 1683 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1184 [2017]), and we decline to exercise ourinterest of justice jurisdiction to adjudicate defendant a youthful offender (seeMatsulavage, 121 AD3d at 1581). Present—Peradotto, J.P., Carni, Lindley, Troutmanand Scudder, JJ.