People v. Rivera

Opinion

People v Rivera

2026 NY Slip Op 04698

July 24, 2026

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

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

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

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

v

JUAN RIVERA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

Decided on July 24, 2026

540 KA 23-01493

Present: Whalen, P.J., Curran, Montour, Greenwood, And Nowak, JJ.

JULIE CIANCA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (AARON FRIEDMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

BRIAN P. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LISA GRAY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Judith A. Sinclair, J.), rendered July 19, 2023. The judgment convicted defendant upon a plea of guilty of manslaughter in the first degree and arson in the fourth degree.

[*1]

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

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]) and arson in the fourth degree (§ 150.05), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid and that his sentence is unduly harsh and severe. We affirm. Defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Diaz, 242 AD3d 1624, 1624 [4th Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1065 [2026]; see generally People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 559-564 [2019], cert denied 589 US 1302 [2020]). We note at the outset that Supreme Court used the appropriate model colloquy with respect to the waiver of the right to appeal (see NY Model Colloquies, Waiver of Right to Appeal). We also reject defendant's specific contention that he did not validly waive his right to appeal inasmuch as he did not receive consideration for the waiver. To the contrary, the record establishes that defendant received consideration in exchange for the waiver inasmuch as the plea agreement resulted in defendant pleading guilty to reduced charges in full satisfaction of the multi-count indictment and that defendant also received a sentence promise (see People v Jackson, 247 AD3d 1625, 1627 [4th Dept 2026]; People v Campbell, 244 AD3d 1826, 1828-1829 [4th Dept 2025], lv denied — NY3d — [2026]; People v Allen, 174 AD3d 1456, 1456 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d

978 [2019]). The valid waiver forecloses defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]).

Entered: July 24, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court