PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS (2007)

 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 A.D.2d 962, 962, 723 N.Y.S.2d 301, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 899, 730 N.Y.S.2d 796, 756 N.E.2d 84).   That valid waiver encompasses the contentions of defendant with respect to County Court's suppression rulings (see People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754;  People v. Stewart, 35 A.D.3d 1168, 825 N.Y.S.2d 404;  People v. Rosado, 26 A.D.3d 891, 808 N.Y.S.2d 523, lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 838, 814 N.Y.S.2d 86, 847 N.E.2d 383), 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 A.D.2d 16, 18, 698 N.Y.S.2d 8).   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 A.D.3d 1191, 817 N.Y.S.2d 824, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 868, 824 N.Y.S.2d 613, 857 N.E.2d 1144;  see People v. Oglesby, 15 A.D.3d 888, 889, 788 N.Y.S.2d 793, lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 855, 797 N.Y.S.2d 429, 830 N.E.2d 328;  People v. Martin, 294 A.D.2d 850, 741 N.Y.S.2d 763, lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 711, 749 N.Y.S.2d 9, 778 N.E.2d 560).   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 N.Y.2d 733, 737, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46) and, in any event, defendant received the bargained-for sentence.

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

MEMORANDUM: