HILL, SHANNON v. PEOPLE v , 939 N.Y.S.2d 919 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    356
    KA 11-00789
    PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                              MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    SHANNON V. HILL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    KATHLEEN E. CASEY, BARKER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    MICHAEL J. VIOLANTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (THOMAS H. BRANDT OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Matthew J.
    Murphy, III, J.), rendered April 19, 2010. The judgment convicted
    defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery 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 his plea of guilty of attempted robbery in the second degree
    (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.10 [1]). We reject defendant’s contention
    that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid. “No particular
    litany is required for an effective waiver of the right to appeal”
    (People v McDonald, 270 AD2d 955, lv denied 95 NY2d 800; see People v
    Moissett, 76 NY2d 909, 910-911). The record establishes that
    defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, voluntary and
    intelligent and was “intended comprehensively to cover all aspects of
    the case” (People v Muniz, 91 NY2d 570, 575). Insofar as defendant
    contends that the waiver of the right to appeal should not encompass
    any issues raised in a CPL article 330 or article 440 motion or in an
    application for coram nobis relief (see generally People v Liggins, 56
    AD3d 1265), that contention is premature because it seeks merely an
    advisory opinion. Defendant’s further contention that he received
    ineffective assistance of counsel does not survive the waiver of the
    right to appeal or the guilty plea inasmuch as there is no showing
    that “the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly
    ineffective assistance or that defendant entered the plea because of
    [his] attorney[’s] allegedly poor performance” (People v Gleen, 73
    AD3d 1443, 1444, lv denied 15 NY3d 773 [internal quotation marks
    omitted]).
    Entered:    March 16, 2012                         Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 11-00789

Citation Numbers: 93 A.D.3d 1237, 939 N.Y.S.2d 919

Filed Date: 3/16/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/1/2024