GIBSON, JR., WILLIAM D., PEOPLE v

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

GIBSON, JR., WILLIAM D., PEOPLE v

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 2017

DocketKA 14-00579

StatusPublished

This text of GIBSON, JR., WILLIAM D., PEOPLE v (GIBSON, JR., WILLIAM D., 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

GIBSON, JR., WILLIAM D., PEOPLE v, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

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

133 KA 14-00579 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CURRAN, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WILLIAM D. GIBSON, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANE I. YOON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (James J. Piampiano, J.), rendered November 14, 2013. 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: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a guilty plea of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, his waiver of the right to appeal is valid (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256; People v Weinstock, 129 AD3d 1663, 1663, lv denied 26 NY3d 1012). 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 Williams, 132 AD3d 1291, 1291, lv denied 26 NY3d 1151). We reject defendant’s 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 AD3d 1211, 1211, lv denied 12 NY3d 761; see Williams, 132 AD3d at 1291). Defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to County Court’s suppression ruling (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833; Williams, 132 AD3d at 1291; Weinstock, 129 AD3d at 1663).

Entered: February 10, 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

133 KA 14-00579 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CURRAN, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WILLIAM D. GIBSON, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANE I. YOON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (James J. Piampiano, J.), rendered November 14, 2013. 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: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a guilty plea of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, his waiver of the right to appeal is valid (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256; People v Weinstock, 129 AD3d 1663, 1663, lv denied 26 NY3d 1012). 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 Williams, 132 AD3d 1291, 1291, lv denied 26 NY3d 1151). We reject defendant’s 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 AD3d 1211, 1211, lv denied 12 NY3d 761; see Williams, 132 AD3d at 1291). Defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to County Court’s suppression ruling (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833; Williams, 132 AD3d at 1291; Weinstock, 129 AD3d at 1663).

Entered: February 10, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

GIBSON, JR., WILLIAM D., PEOPLE v, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibson-jr-william-d-people-v-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack