People v. Romero-Flores

• Citation: 8 N.Y.S.3d 606 (Mem),128 A.D.3d 1102,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04518
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Ricardo A. ROMERO–FLORES, appellant.
• Decision Date: 27 May 2015
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

128 A.D.3d 1102

8 N.Y.S.3d 606 (Mem)

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04518

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent

v.Ricardo A. ROMERO–FLORES, appellant.

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

May 27, 2015.

Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Alfred J. Cicale of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marcia R. Kucera of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Suffolk County (Cohen, J.), imposed November 26, 2012, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.

The record of the plea proceeding demonstrates that the defendant received “[an] explanation of the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving that right” (People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d 133, 144, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297 ; see People v. McRae, 123 A.D.3d 848, 848–849, 996 N.Y.S.2d 531 ). On the record presented, we conclude that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see generally People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 264–267, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 ; People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d 737, 738, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222 ; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255, 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 ). Accordingly, the defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. Hardy, 120 A.D.3d 1358, 1358, 991 N.Y.S.2d 904 ; People v. Arteev, 120 A.D.3d 1255, 1255, 991 N.Y.S.2d 776 ; People v. Alexander, 104 A.D.3d 862, 862, 960 N.Y.S.2d 659 ).

ENG, P.J., MASTRO, HALL, MILLER and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.