COKE, WILLIAM J., PEOPLE v ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    29
    KA 09-01440
    PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, GREEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    WILLIAM J. COKE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    DAVID J. FARRUGIA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (JOSEPH G. FRAZIER OF
    COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    WILLIAM J. COKE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.
    MICHAEL J. VIOLANTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (THOMAS H. BRANDT OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Peter L.
    Broderick, Sr., J.), rendered April 25, 2002. The judgment convicted
    defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sodomy in the third 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 sodomy in the third degree (Penal Law
    former § 130.40 [2]). We reject the contention of defendant that his
    waiver of the right to appeal was invalid. County Court “made clear
    that the waiver of the right to appeal was a condition of [the] plea,
    not a consequence thereof, and the record reflects that defendant
    understood that the waiver of the right to appeal was ‘separate and
    distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of
    guilty’ ” (People v Graham, 77 AD3d 1439, 1439, quoting People v
    Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256). Defendant’s challenge to the severity of the
    sentence is encompassed by the valid waiver of the right to appeal
    (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737). To the extent that the
    contention of defendant in his pro se supplemental brief that he was
    denied effective assistance of counsel survives the plea and the
    waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Cloyd, 78 AD3d 1669;
    People v Pratt, 77 AD3d 1337), we conclude that his contention is
    lacking in merit (see generally People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404). We
    have reviewed the remaining contentions of defendant in his pro se
    supplemental brief and conclude that they are also without merit.
    Entered:   February 10, 2011                       Patricia L. Morgan
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 09-01440

Filed Date: 2/10/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/8/2016