BURT, JIBRIL A., PEOPLE v ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    1324
    KA 11-02185
    PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    JIBRIL A. BURT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT L. KEMP OF
    COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DONNA A. MILLING OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Sheila A.
    DiTullio, J.), rendered September 29, 2011. The judgment convicted
    defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree.
    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 burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25
    [2]), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is
    unenforceable and that he should have been afforded youthful offender
    treatment. We reject those contentions. Defendant waived his right
    to appeal both orally and in writing, and the record demonstrates that
    County Court “ ‘engage[d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to
    ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and
    voluntary choice’ ” (People v Glasper, 46 AD3d 1401, 1401, lv denied
    10 NY3d 863; see People v Korber, 89 AD3d 1543, 1543, lv denied 19
    NY3d 864). Further, “the record as a whole, including the written
    waiver of the right to appeal, establishes ‘that the defendant
    understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from
    those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty’ ” (People
    v Jones, 96 AD3d 1637, 1637, lv denied 19 NY3d 1103). Defendant’s
    valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his contention that he
    should have been afforded youthful offender treatment (see People v
    Rush, 94 AD3d 1449, 1449-1450, lv denied 19 NY3d 967). Finally, there
    is no merit to defendant’s contention that the court failed to rule on
    his request for such treatment inasmuch as the court’s comments at
    sentencing establish that the request was denied.
    Entered:   December 28, 2012                       Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 11-02185

Filed Date: 12/28/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/8/2016