WALKER, JR., CHRISTOPHER, PEOPLE v ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    1156
    KA 12-00749
    PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                              MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    CHRISTOPHER T. WALKER, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    THOMAS J. EOANNOU, BUFFALO (JEREMY D. SCHWARTZ OF COUNSEL), FOR
    DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    MICHAEL J. VIOLANTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (LAURA T. BITTNER OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Sara S.
    Sperrazza, J.), rendered May 26, 2010. The judgment convicted
    defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the first
    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 attempted robbery in the first degree (Penal Law §§
    110.00, 160.15 [3]), defendant contends that County Court abused its
    discretion in denying his recusal motion made at sentencing. Even
    assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s contention survives his valid
    waiver of the right to appeal (cf. People v Mahipat, 49 AD3d 1243,
    1244), we conclude that it is without merit. The court was not
    required to recuse itself from sentencing defendant based on the fact
    that it had presided over the codefendant’s trial (see People v
    Bennett, 238 AD2d 898, 899-900, lv denied 90 NY2d 855, 90 NY2d 890,
    cert denied 
    524 US 918
    ). “Moreover, none of [the c]ourt’s remarks . .
    . was indicative of bias against defendant and, therefore, recusal was
    not warranted on [that] basis” (People v Casey, 61 AD3d 1011, 1014, lv
    denied 12 NY3d 913; see People v Johnson, 294 AD2d 908, 908, lv denied
    98 NY2d 677). Finally, defendant’s valid waiver of the right to
    appeal encompasses his contention concerning the denial of his request
    for youthful offender status (see People v Rush, 94 AD3d 1449, 1449,
    lv denied 19 NY3d 967; People v Farewell, 90 AD3d 1502, 1502, lv
    denied 18 NY3d 957).
    Entered:    November 16, 2012                      Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 12-00749

Filed Date: 11/16/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/8/2016