| People v Lefler |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 01790 [159 AD3d 1427] |
| March 16, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v DonaldLefler, Appellant. |
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Nathaniel V. Riley of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.
William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Nicole K. Intschert of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Thomas J. Miller, J.), renderedDecember 23, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in thefirst degree.
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 ofrape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35 [4]). We reject defendant's contentionthat his waiver of the right to appeal was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d248, 256 [2006]). County Court "did not conflate that right with those automaticallyforfeited by a guilty plea" (People vMcCrea, 140 AD3d 1655, 1655 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 933 [2016][internal quotation marks omitted]), and we conclude that "the court engaged defendant in anadequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntarychoice" (People v Massey, 149AD3d 1524, 1525 [4th Dept 2017] [internal quotation marks omitted]). The valid waiver ofthe right to appeal forecloses defendant's challenge to the severity of his sentence (seegenerally Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255).
Defendant further contends that his guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, andvoluntarily entered and that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw hisplea on that ground. Although that contention survives defendant's waiver of the right to appeal(see Massey, 149 AD3d at 1525), defendant's claim that he "did not fully understand whathe was doing" is belied by the record. Defendant articulated to the court that he fully understoodthe rights he was giving up as part of the plea bargain and that he had consulted with his attorney.He further admitted his guilt, recited all of the elements and facts of the crime with which he wascharged, and stated that his decision to plead guilty was voluntary. Thus, we conclude that thecourt did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to vacate the plea (see generally People v Schluter, 136AD3d 1363, 1364 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1138 [2016]).Present—Centra, J.P., Carni, NeMoyer, Curran and Winslow, JJ.