People v. Taft
| Decision Date | 28 February 2019 |
| Docket Number | 108756 |
| Citation | 169 A.D.3d 1266,94 N.Y.S.3d 726 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Philip M. TAFT, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
169 A.D.3d 1266
94 N.Y.S.3d 726
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Philip M. TAFT, Appellant.
108756
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Calendar Date: January 16, 2019
Decided and Entered: February 28, 2019
Harvey C. Silverstein, Latham, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Jeffrey C. Stitt Jr. of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Garry, P.J., Clark, Mulvey, Aarons and Rumsey, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Garry, P.J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (Ryan, J.), rendered November 19, 2015, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the first degree.
In satisfaction of a three-count indictment stemming from defendant allegedly robbing a convenience store at knife point, defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the first degree and waived his right to appeal. County Court sentenced defendant to a prison term of 10 years followed by five years of postrelease supervision and imposed restitution in the amount of $ 3,500. Defendant appeals.
Initially, the record reflects that the waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, voluntary and intelligent. Although terse,
County Court advised defendant in the plea colloquy that the waiver of the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the rights forfeited by the guilty
plea; defendant acknowledged that this had been explained by defense counsel and that he understood. Defendant further affirmed his knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal in a written waiver that he executed with his counsel. In view of the foregoing, we find that the waiver of the right to appeal is valid (see People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 339–341, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 [2015] ; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006] ; People v. Muller, 166 A.D.3d 1240, 1241, 88 N.Y.S.3d 279 [2018] ). Accordingly, defendant's challenge to the sentence as harsh and excessive is precluded (see People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d at 339–341, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ; People v. Nieves, 163 A.D.3d 1359, 1360, 77 N.Y.S.3d 908 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1006, 86 N.Y.S.3d 765, 111 N.E.3d 1121 [2018] ).
Defendant's challenge to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McCoy
...lvs denied 26 N.Y.3d 1143, 1149, 32 N.Y.S.3d 57, 63, 51 N.E.3d 568, 574 [2016] ). Given that "our state standard ... offers greater 169 A.D.3d 1266protection than the federal test" and the state standard was satisfied here, defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the U.......
-
People v. Hunter
...to request a restitution hearing and his ultimate agreement to the amount awarded to the victim at sentencing (see People v. Taft, 169 A.D.3d 1266, 1267, 94 N.Y.S.3d 726 [2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 1074, 105 N.Y.S.3d 26, 129 N.E.3d 346 [2019] ; People v. Perry, 168 A.D.3d 1287, 1288, 91 N.Y......
-
People v. Almonte
...515, 126 N.E.3d 165 [2019], cert denied ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 486, 205 L.E.2d 280, 2019 WL 5686582 [Nov. 4, 2019] ; People v. Taft, 169 A.D.3d 1266, 1267, 94 N.Y.S.3d 726 [2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 1074, 105 N.Y.S.3d 26, 129 N.E.3d 346 [2019] ), such challenge is also unpreserved for ou......
-
People v. Shackelton
...would find no error in the charges given and that defendant was not entitled to a circumstantial evidence charge (see People v. McCoy , 169 A.D.3d at 1266, 95 N.Y.S.3d 441 ; People v. Coker , 121 A.D.3d 1305, 1307–1308, 995 N.Y.S.2d 288 [2014], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 927, 17 N.Y.S.3d 90, 38 N.......