FURBECK, JOSHUA M., PEOPLE v

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 31, 2017
DocketKA 15-01685
StatusPublished

This text of FURBECK, JOSHUA M., PEOPLE v (FURBECK, JOSHUA M., 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
FURBECK, JOSHUA M., PEOPLE v, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

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

421 KA 15-01685 PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., LINDLEY, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOSHUA M. FURBECK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

AMDURSKY, PELKY, FENNELL & WALLEN, P.C., OSWEGO (COURTNEY S. RADICK OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

GREGORY S. OAKES, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, OSWEGO (AMY L. HALLENBECK OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Oswego County Court (Walter W. Hafner, Jr., J.), rendered August 24, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the fourth degree.

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 grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30 [4]). We reject defendant’s contention that he did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive his right to appeal. County Court engaged defendant “in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v Ripley, 94 AD3d 1554, 1554, lv denied 19 NY3d 976 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Marshall, 144 AD3d 1544, 1545), and “ ‘[d]efendant’s responses to County Court’s questions unequivocally establish that defendant understood the proceedings and was voluntarily waiving the right to appeal’ ” (People v Buryta, 85 AD3d 1621, 1622). Defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his contention that the court abused its discretion in denying his request for youthful offender status (see People v Jones, 96 AD3d 1637, 1637, lv denied 19 NY3d 1103; People v Rush, 94 AD3d 1449, 1449-1450, lv denied 19 NY3d 967; cf. People v Matsulavage, 121 AD3d 1581, lv denied 24 NY3d 1045).

Entered: March 31, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

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

Related

People v. Rush
94 A.D.3d 1449 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Ripley
94 A.D.3d 1554 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Jones
96 A.D.3d 1637 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Matsulavage
121 A.D.3d 1581 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Buryta
85 A.D.3d 1621 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
FURBECK, JOSHUA M., PEOPLE v, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/furbeck-joshua-m-people-v-nyappdiv-2017.