People v. Watson

• Decision Date: 08 February 2019
• Docket Number: 1453,KA 17–00187
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony WATSON, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

169 A.D.3d 1526
93 N.Y.S.3d 507

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Anthony WATSON, Defendant–Appellant.

1453
KA 17–00187

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

Entered: February 8, 2019

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT L. KEMP OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.

JOHN J. FLYNN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (ASHLEY R. LOWRY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, CURRAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

169 A.D.3d 1527

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the third degree ( Penal Law § 160.05 ). Contrary to defendant's contention, his waiver of the right to appeal is valid (see generally People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 264, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 [2011] ; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006] ). The record establishes that defendant had " ‘a full appreciation of the consequences’ of such waiver" ( Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d at 264, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 ) inasmuch as Supreme Court "provided defendant with an extensive and detailed description of the proposed waiver of the right to appeal" and ascertained his understanding thereof ( People v. Thomas, 158 A.D.3d 1191, 1191, 67 N.Y.S.3d 878 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1088, 79 N.Y.S.3d 110, 103 N.E.3d 1257 [2018] ; see People v. Walker, 151 A.D.3d 1765, 1765, 53 N.Y.S.3d 855 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 954, 67 N.Y.S.3d 138, 89 N.E.3d 528 [2017] ; People v. Verse, 61 A.D.3d 1409, 1409, 877 N.Y.S.2d 564 [4th Dept. 2009], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 930, 884 N.Y.S.2d 711, 912 N.E.2d 1092 [2009] ). Contrary to defendant's further contention, as we have repeatedly stated, "a waiver of the right to appeal [is] not rendered invalid based on [a] court's failure to require [the] defendant to articulate the waiver in his [or her] own words" ( People v. Gast, 114 A.D.3d 1270, 1270, 980 N.Y.S.2d 221 [4th Dept. 2014], lv denied

93 N.Y.S.3d 509

22 N.Y.3d 1198, 986 N.Y.S.2d 419, 9 N.E.3d 914 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see e.g. People v. Scott, 144 A.D.3d 1597, 1597, 40 N.Y.S.3d 689 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1150, 52 N.Y.S.3d 302, 74 N.E.3d 687 [2017] ; People v. Dozier, 59 A.D.3d 987, 987, 872 N.Y.S.2d 317 [4th Dept. 2009], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 815, 881 N.Y.S.2d 23, 908 N.E.2d 931 [2009] ).

Defendant contends that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty, which was premised on his allegations that he was under the influence of recently prescribed pain medication that affected his ability to understand the plea proceeding and that the plea was therefore not knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Although that contention survives defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Davis, 129 A.D.3d 1613, 1614, 11 N.Y.S.3d 778 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 966, 18 N.Y.S.3d 602, 40 N.E.3d 580 [2015] ), we conclude that his contention lacks merit. Defendant, in response to the court's inquiry during the plea proceeding, denied that he had "any drugs or alcohol or substances like that in...