DONERLSON, PATIQUE, PEOPLE v

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DONERLSON, PATIQUE, PEOPLE v

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 28, 2017

DocketKA 14-01249

StatusPublished

This text of DONERLSON, PATIQUE, PEOPLE v (DONERLSON, PATIQUE, PEOPLE v) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

DONERLSON, PATIQUE, PEOPLE v, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

603 KA 14-01249 PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, PERADOTTO, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PATIQUE DONERLSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KIMBERLY F. DUGUAY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O’BRIEN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (James J. Piampiano, J.), rendered May 22, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (two counts).

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of two counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.25 [1])). Contrary to the contention of defendant, the record establishes that she knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256), and that valid waiver constitutes a general unrestricted waiver that forecloses any challenge by her to the severity of the sentence (see id. at 255-266; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928). To the extent that defendant contends that the “written waiver of [the right to] appeal is unenforceable because it contained certain nonwaivable rights[, a]ny 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 Williams, 132 AD3d 1291, 1291, lv denied 26 NY3d 1151 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Gibson, 147 AD3d 1507, 1508; People v Mead, 133 AD3d 1257, 1258).

Entered: April 28, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

603 KA 14-01249 PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, PERADOTTO, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PATIQUE DONERLSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KIMBERLY F. DUGUAY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O’BRIEN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (James J. Piampiano, J.), rendered May 22, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (two counts).

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of two counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.25 [1])). Contrary to the contention of defendant, the record establishes that she knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256), and that valid waiver constitutes a general unrestricted waiver that forecloses any challenge by her to the severity of the sentence (see id. at 255-266; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928). To the extent that defendant contends that the “written waiver of [the right to] appeal is unenforceable because it contained certain nonwaivable rights[, a]ny 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 Williams, 132 AD3d 1291, 1291, lv denied 26 NY3d 1151 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Gibson, 147 AD3d 1507, 1508; People v Mead, 133 AD3d 1257, 1258).

Entered: April 28, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

DONERLSON, PATIQUE, PEOPLE v, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donerlson-patique-people-v-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack