People v. Walsh

• Decision Date: 14 October 1997
• Citation: 243 A.D.2d 590,665 N.Y.S.2d 514
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Thomas WALSH, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 514

665 N.Y.S.2d 514

243 A.D.2d 590

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Thomas WALSH, Appellant.

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

Oct. 14, 1997.

Scott T. Horn, New York City, for appellant.

James M. Catterson, Jr., District Attorney, Riverhead (Patricia M. Filiberto, of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Klein, J.), rendered July 31, 1996, convicting him of arson in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, he did not demonstrate that he should be relieved of the effect of his plea of guilty or waiver of appellate review. The record establishes that the court explained the ramifications of the plea and waiver in sufficient detail, and that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his rights (see, People v. Allen, 82 N.Y.2d 761, 603 N.Y.S.2d 820, 623 N.E.2d 1170; People v. Torres, 236 A.D.2d 642, 654 N.Y.S.2d 658; People v. Love, 236 A.D.2d 488, 654 N.Y.S.2d 149; People v. Berry, 235 A.D.2d 485, 652 N.Y.S.2d 997). In light of the defendant's conclusory assertions of coercion and innocence, which are wholly belied by the record, the trial court did not err in denying his motion to withdraw the plea (see, People v. Flakes, 240 A.D.2d 428, 658 N.Y.S.2d 106; People v. Sider, 232 A.D.2d 666, 649 N.Y.S.2d 455; People v. Jones, 232 A.D.2d 505, 648 N.Y.S.2d 331; People v. Palmeri, 227 A.D.2d 418, 642 N.Y.S.2d 555; People v. Spinks, 227 A.D.2d 310, 643 N.Y.S.2d 54).

While the defendant's waiver of the right to appeal does not preclude appellate review of his contentions concerning the alleged violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial (People v. Love, supra; People v. Grandberry, 223 A.D.2d 723, 637 N.Y.S.2d 203), his contention is without merit (see, People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 373 N.Y.S.2d 79, 335 N.E.2d 303; People v. Murphy, 212 A.D.2d 811, 623 N.Y.S.2d 278; People v. Rossi, 210 A.D.2d 511, 620 N.Y.S.2d 465; People v. Foster, 205 A.D.2d 313, 612 N.Y.S.2d 414).

MILLER, J.P., and RITTER, KRAUSMAN and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur.