People v. Adams
| Decision Date | 20 April 2012 |
| Citation | 94 A.D.3d 1428,942 N.Y.S.2d 833,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 02989 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony N. ADAMS, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Sara S. Sperrazza, J.), rendered June 10, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree and manslaughter in the first degree.Patricia M. McGrath, Lockport, for defendant–appellant.
Michael J. Violante, District Attorney, Lockport (Thomas H. Brandt of Counsel), for Respondent.
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15[3] ) and manslaughter in the first degree (§ 125.20[1] ). We reject defendant's contention that his waiver of the right to appeal was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered ( see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145; People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 735, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46). “The responses of defendant to County Court's questions during the plea colloquy establish that he understood the consequences of waiving the right to appeal and voluntarily waived that right” ( People v. Ruffins, 78 A.D.3d 1627, 1627–1628, 910 N.Y.S.2d 625; see People v. Dunham, 83 A.D.3d 1423, 1424, 919 N.Y.S.2d 258, lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 794, 929 N.Y.S.2d 102, 952 N.E.2d 1097). Further, the court “ ‘describ[ed] the nature of the right being waived without lumping that right into the panoply of trial rights automatically forfeited upon pleading guilty’ ” ( People v. Tabb, 81 A.D.3d 1322, 1322, 916 N.Y.S.2d 567, lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 900, 926 N.Y.S.2d 35, 949 N.E.2d 983, quoting Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 257, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145). The court also “ ‘made clear that the waiver of the right to appeal was a condition of [the] plea, not a consequence thereof’ ” ( People v. McCarthy, 83 A.D.3d 1533, 1533–1534, 921 N.Y.S.2d 755, lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 819, 929 N.Y.S.2d 808, 954 N.E.2d 99).
“The valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses defendant's contention concerning the denial of his request for youthful offender status” ( People v. Elshabazz, 81 A.D.3d 1429, 1429, 916 N.Y.S.2d 883, lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 858, 923 N.Y.S.2d 420, 947 N.E.2d 1199; see People v. Harris, 77 A.D.3d 1326, 907 N.Y.S.2d 893, lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 743, 917 N.Y.S.2d 625, 942 N.E.2d 1050). The waiver, however, “does not encompass his contention with respect to the severity of the sentence ... because the record establishes that defendant waived his right to appeal before County Court advised him of the potential periods of imprisonment that could be imposed” ( People v. Mingo, 38 A.D.3d 1270, 1271, 832 N.Y.S.2d 721). Nonetheles...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gibson
...we conclude that defendant made a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal (see 140 A.D.3d 1787 People v. Adams, 94 A.D.3d 1428, 1428–1429, 942 N.Y.S.2d 833, lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 970, 950 N.Y.S.2d 353, 973 N.E.2d 763 ; see generally People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337,......
-
People v. Northrup
... ... Shrubsall, 167 A.D.2d 929, 930–931, 562 N.Y.S.2d 290). Finally, the valid appeal waiver forecloses any challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence ( see Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 255, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145;cf. People v. Adams, 94 A.D.3d 1428, 1429, 942 N.Y.S.2d 833,lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 970, 950 N.Y.S.2d 353, 973 N.E.2d 763;see generally [984 N.Y.S.2d 741]People v. Lococo, 92 N.Y.2d 825, 827, 677 N.Y.S.2d 57, 699 N.E.2d 416;People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 737, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d ... ...
-
People v. Merritt
...is based on matters outside the record and must therefore be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL article 440 ( see Culver, 94 A.D.3d at 1428, 942 N.Y.S.2d 832). It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously ...
-
People v. Culver
...was afforded such meaningful representation here. “ ‘To the extent that defendant contends that defense counsel was ineffective [94 A.D.3d 1428] because he coerced defendant into pleading guilty, that contention is belied by defendant's statement during the plea colloquy that the plea was n......