People v. Williams

• Decision Date: 02 October 2015
• Citation: 17 N.Y.S.3d 360,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 07124,132 A.D.3d 1291
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Taroy WILLIAMS, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

132 A.D.3d 1291

17 N.Y.S.3d 360

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 07124

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Taroy WILLIAMS, Defendant–Appellant.

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

Oct. 2, 2015.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Alex R. Renzi, J.), rendered August 29, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree.

Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Jane I. Yoon of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Robert J. Shoemaker of Counsel), for Respondent.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robberyin the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15[4] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, his waiver of the right to appeal is valid ( see generally People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145; People v. Weinstock, 129 A.D.3d 1663, 1663, 11 N.Y.S.3d 782; People v. Smith, 122 A.D.3d 1300, 1301, 995 N.Y.S.2d 881, lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 1172, 15 N.Y.S.3d 303, 36 N.E.3d 106). The “plea colloquy, together with the written waiver of the right to appeal, adequately apprised defendant that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” (People v. Arney, 120 A.D.3d 949, 949, 990 N.Y.S.2d 752 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Buske, 87 A.D.3d 1354, 1354, 930 N.Y.S.2d 155, lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 882, 939 N.Y.S.2d 751, 963 N.E.2d 128). We reject defendant's further contention that the written waiver of appeal is unenforceable because it contained certain nonwaivable rights. “Any nonwaivable [rights] purportedly encompassed by the waiver ‘are excluded from the scope of the waiver [and] the remainder of the waiver is valid and enforceable’ ” (People v. Neal, 56 A.D.3d 1211, 1211, 867 N.Y.S.2d 612, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 761, 876 N.Y.S.2d 712, 904 N.E.2d 849; see People v. Henion, 110 A.D.3d 1349, 1350, 973 N.Y.S.2d 857, lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 1088, 981 N.Y.S.2d 674, 4 N.E.3d 976; People v. Gruber, 108 A.D.3d 877, 878, 969 N.Y.S.2d 586, lv. denied22 N.Y.3d 956, 977 N.Y.S.2d 187, 999 N.E.2d 552; People v. Umber, 2 A.D.3d 1051, 1052, 769 N.Y.S.2d 632, lv. denied 2 N.Y.3d 747, 778 N.Y.S.2d 472, 810 N.E.2d 925). Defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to Supreme Court's suppression ruling ( see People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754; People v. Braxton, 129 A.D.3d 1674, 1675, 10 N.Y.S.3d 791; People v. Putnam, 50 A.D.3d 1514, 1514, 855 N.Y.S.2d 785, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 963, 863 N.Y.S.2d 147, 893 N.E.2d 453).

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

CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, WHALEN, and DeJOSEPH, JJ., concur.