People v. Gee

People v Gee (2019 NY Slip Op 00729)

People v Gee

2019 NY Slip Op 00729

Decided on February 1, 2019

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 1, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

115 KA 17-02228

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

v

QUENTIN Z. GEE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

DAVID J. FARRUGIA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (JOSEPH G. FRAZIER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

CAROLINE A. WOJTASZEK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (MARY-JEAN BOWMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Matthew J. Murphy, III, J.), rendered October 2, 2017. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary 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 burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]). Contrary to defendant's contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]) and that he understood " that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty' " (People v Dames, 122 AD3d 1336, 1336 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 1162 [2015]). The valid waiver of the right to appeal forecloses defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentence (see Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255-256; see generally People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]).

Entered: February 1, 2019

Mark W. Bennett

Clerk of the Court