People v. Hill

• Decision Date: 16 March 2012
• Citation: 93 A.D.3d 1237,939 N.Y.S.2d 919,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 01987
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Shannon V. HILL, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 01987

93 A.D.3d 1237

939 N.Y.S.2d 919

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Shannon V. HILL, Defendant–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

March 16, 2012.

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Matthew J. Murphy, III, J.), rendered April 19, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the second degree.Kathleen E. Casey, Barker, for defendant-appellant.

Michael J. Violante, District Attorney, Lockport (Thomas H. Brandt of Counsel), for respondent.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted robbery in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.10 [1] ). We reject defendant's contention that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid. “No particular litany is required for an effective waiver of the right to appeal” ( People v. McDonald, 270 A.D.2d 955, 705 N.Y.S.2d 308, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 800, 711 N.Y.S.2d 168, 733 N.E.2d 240; see People v. Moissett, 76 N.Y.2d 909, 910–911, 563 N.Y.S.2d 43, 564 N.E.2d 653). The record establishes that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, voluntary and intelligent and was “intended comprehensively to cover all aspects of the case” ( People v. Muniz, 91 N.Y.2d 570, 575, 673 N.Y.S.2d 358, 696 N.E.2d 182). Insofar as defendant contends that the waiver of the right to appeal should not encompass any issues raised in a CPL article 330 or article 440 motion or in an application for coram nobis relief ( see generally People v. Liggins, 56 A.D.3d 1265, 868 N.Y.S.2d 840), that contention is premature because it seeks merely an advisory opinion. Defendant's further contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel does not survive the waiver of the right to appeal or the guilty plea inasmuch as there is no showing that “the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or that defendant entered the plea because of [his] attorney['s] allegedly poor performance” ( People v. Gleen, 73 A.D.3d 1443, 1444, 900 N.Y.S.2d 812, lv. denied *920 15 N.Y.3d 773, 907 N.Y.S.2d 462, 933 N.E.2d 1055 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, LINDLEY, and MARTOCHE, JJ., concur.