BYNG, KEVIN v. PEOPLE v , 49 N.Y.S.3d 331 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    267
    KA 14-00575
    PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN,
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                              MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    KEVIN V. BYNG, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    (APPEAL NO. 1.)
    PETER J. DIGIORGIO, JR., UTICA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    KEVIN V. BYNG, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.
    SCOTT D. MCNAMARA, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, UTICA (STEVEN G. COX OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Barry M.
    Donalty, J.), rendered September 2, 2011. The judgment convicted
    defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed.
    Memorandum: Defendant appeals from two judgments convicting him,
    upon his pleas of guilty, of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law
    § 160.10 [2] [b]) and attempted robbery in the third degree
    (§§ 110.00, 160.05), respectively. In appeal No. 1, we conclude that
    defendant validly waived his right to appeal and that his “general
    unrestricted waiver” encompasses his challenge to the severity of his
    bargained-for sentence (People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737; see People
    v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255-256; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928).
    In appeal No. 2, we conclude that defendant did not validly waive his
    right to appeal inasmuch as County Court failed to “ ‘engage[] the
    defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the
    right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice’ ” (People v Brown,
    296 AD2d 860, 860, lv denied 98 NY2d 767). Nevertheless, we conclude
    that the sentence in appeal No. 2 is not unduly harsh or severe.
    The remaining contentions in defendant’s pro se supplemental
    brief are based upon matters dehors the record, and are thus not
    properly before us on defendant’s direct appeals from the judgments
    (see People v Wilson, 108 AD3d 1011, 1013).
    Entered:    March 31, 2017                         Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 14-00575

Citation Numbers: 148 A.D.3d 1752, 49 N.Y.S.3d 331

Judges: Smith, Carni, Nemoyer, Curran, Troutman

Filed Date: 3/31/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/1/2024