Court Opinion

ID: 4176344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-06-09 19:14:02.655435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:12.280904
License: Public Domain

People v Walker (2017 NY Slip Op 04723)

People v Walker

2017 NY Slip Op 04723

Decided on June 9, 2017

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 9, 2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

816 KA 14-01904

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
vCHASE WALKER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT L. KEMP OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
MICHAEL J. FLAHERTY, JR., ACTING DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (NICHOLAS T. TEXIDO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

	Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Russell P. Buscaglia, A.J.), rendered January 29, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. 
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence. Specifically, defendant contends that Supreme Court's colloquy was insufficient to ensure that defendant understood all of the rights he was waiving. Contrary to defendant's contention, the record establishes that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256). Defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal, which specifically included a waiver of the right to challenge the "severity of any sentence," encompasses his contention that the sentence imposed is unduly harsh and severe (see id. at 255-256; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928).
Entered: June 9, 2017
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court