| People v Lopez |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 04864 [186 AD3d 1259] |
| September 2, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Anthony Lopez, Appellant. |
Scott M. Bishop, White Plains, NY, for appellant.
Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., White Plains, NY (Christine DiSalvo and William C. Milaccio ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Westchester County(Barry E. Warhit, J.), both rendered April 26, 2018, convicting him of assault in the seconddegree under indictment No. 17-00185, and robbery in the first degree under indictment No.17-00952, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
On March 21, 2018, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to robbery in the first degree(Penal Law § 160.15) and, separately, a plea of guilty to assault in the seconddegree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]), each, respectively, in satisfaction of the chargespending against him in two separate indictments. Before the defendant was allocuted as to eachof the charges, he waived his right to appeal the judgments entered on each of theconvictions.
The defendant now appeals from both judgments of conviction contending that the pleaallocution on the indictment which charged him with, inter alia, assault in the second degree(Penal Law § 120.05 [2]) was insufficient to establish an essential element of thecrime. The defendant makes no argument on the merits as to his plea to robbery in the firstdegree (Penal Law § 160.15).
Here, the record reflects that the defendant's plea to assault in the second degree wasknowing, voluntary, and intelligent. The record also indicates that the defendant's waiver of hisright to appeal as to each of the indictments was knowing, voluntary and intelligent. In itscolloquy with the defendant, the Supreme Court differentiated the appellate rights that thedefendant was agreeing to waive as a condition of the plea agreements from the rights thedefendant was waiving by entering pleas of guilty, advised the defendant that not all appellaterights could be waived, and assured on the record that the defendant had "ample opportunity todiscuss with counsel the meaning of the waiver and appellate rights he was surrendering. . . sufficient to support a knowing and voluntary waiver under the totality of thecircumstances" (People v Thomas,34 NY3d 545, 564 [2019]; seePeople v Batista, 167 AD3d 69, 74 [2018]).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of hiscontention that his plea was not sufficient because it failed to include an essential element of thecrime (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d248, 255 [2006]; People vGriffin, 167 AD3d 934, 934 [2018]).
We agree with the Supreme Court's determination denying the defendant's request for anorder directing the Department of Correctional Services not to cut his hair (see CPL 1.20[16] [c]; Matter of Fludd vGoldberg, 51 AD3d 153, 157 [2008]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
Accordingly, the judgments are affirmed. Scheinkman, P.J., Duffy, Connolly andChristopher, JJ., concur.