| People v Rocchino |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 06462 [153 AD3d 1284] |
| September 13, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Kerwin Rocchino, Appellant. |
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, NY, for appellant.
Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, NY (Morrie I. Kleinbart of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court,Richmond County (Collini, J.), imposed May 14, 2014, upon his plea of guilty, on the groundthat the sentence was excessive.
Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.
A waiver of the right to appeal "is effective only so long as the record demonstrates that itwas made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily" (People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d257, 264 [2011]; People vBrown, 122 AD3d 133, 136 [2014]). Although the Court of Appeals has "repeatedlyobserved that there is no mandatory litany that must be used in order to obtain a valid waiver ofappellate rights" (People v Johnson,14 NY3d 483, 486 [2010]), "[t]he best way to ensure that the record reflects that the right isknown and intentionally relinquished by the defendant is to fully explain to the defendant, on therecord, the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving it" (People vBrown, 122 AD3d at 142).
Here, the record of the plea proceeding demonstrates that the defendant received anexplanation of the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving that right (see People v Stiles, 143 AD3d747, 747 [2016]; People vRomero-Flores, 128 AD3d 1102, 1102 [2015]; People v McRae, 123 AD3d 848, 848-849 [2014]; People vBrown, 122 AD3d at 144). On the record presented, we conclude that the defendantknowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see generally People vBradshaw, 18 NY3d at 264-267; People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; People v Lopez,6 NY3d at 255; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 735 [1998]). Accordingly, thedefendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contention that thesentence imposed was excessive (see People v Hardy, 120 AD3d 1358, 1358 [2014]; People v Arteev, 120 AD3d 1255,1255 [2014]; People v Alexander,104 AD3d 862, 862 [2013]). Eng, P.J., Dillon, Sgroi, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.,concur.