People v. Rooker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rooker

2017 NY Slip Op 8130, 155 A.D.3d 1659, 63 N.Y.S.3d 924

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 17, 2017·No. 1247 KA 15-00943·Published

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Mark H. Fandrich, A.J.), rendered January 13, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the third 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 rape in the third degree (Penal Law § 130.25 [3]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]) and, because County Court discussed the possibility of adjudicating defendant a youthful offender during the plea colloquy (see People v Daigler, 148 AD3d 1685, 1686 [4th Dept 2017]; cf. People v Anderson, 90 AD3d 1475, 1475-1476 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 991 [2012]), that waiver encompasses defendant’s challenge to the denial of his request for youthful offender status (see People v Pacherille, 25 NY3d 1021, 1024 [2015]).

Present—Carni, J.P., Lindley, DeJoseph, Troutman and Winslow, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Mark H. Fandrich, A.J.), rendered January 13, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the third 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 rape in the third degree (Penal Law § 130.25 [3]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]) and, because County Court discussed the possibility of adjudicating defendant a youthful offender during the plea colloquy (see People v Daigler, 148 AD3d 1685, 1686 [4th Dept 2017]; cf. People v Anderson, 90 AD3d 1475, 1475-1476 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 991 [2012]), that waiver encompasses defendant’s challenge to the denial of his request for youthful offender status (see People v Pacherille, 25 NY3d 1021, 1024 [2015]).

Present—Carni, J.P., Lindley, DeJoseph, Troutman and Winslow, JJ.

People v. Rooker, 2017 NY Slip Op 8130, 155 A.D.3d 1659, 63 N.Y.S.3d 924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

2017 NY Slip Op 8130 (People v. Rooker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related