People v. Williams

Apr 20, 2007
Versions:39 A.D.3d 1200
835 N.Y.S.2d 793

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, “[t]he plea allocution as a whole establishes that [his] waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” (People v Brown, 281 AD2d 962, 962 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 899 [2001]). That valid waiver encompasses the contentions of defendant with respect to County Court‘s suppression rulings (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; People v Stewart, 35 AD3d 1168 [2006]; People v Rosado, 26 AD3d 891 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 838 [2006]), including his nonjurisdictional contention that his due process rights were violated because the police did not electronically record their interrogation of him at the police station (see generally People v Verrone, 266 AD2d 16, 18 [1999]). In any event, that contention lacks merit because “[t]here is no Federal or State due process requirement that interrogations and confessions be electronically recorded” (People v Kunz, 31 AD3d 1191 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 868 [2006]; see People v Oglesby, 15 AD3d 888, 889 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 855 [2005]; People v Martin, 294 AD2d 850 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 711 [2002]). Finally, the valid waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]) and, in any event, defendant received the bargained-for sentence. Present—Gorski, J.P., Martoche, Centra, Lunn and Green, JJ.