PEOPLE v. LAWS (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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 assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [3]).

Contrary to defendant's contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Williams, 228 A.D.3d 1316, 1316, 212 N.Y.S.3d 887 [4th Dept. 2024], lv denied 42 N.Y.3d 972, 219 N.Y.S.3d 627, 244 N.E.3d 1085 [2024], reconsideration denied 42 N.Y.3d 1055, 225 N.Y.S.3d 650, 250 N.E.3d 661 [2024]; see generally People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 559-564, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 [2019], cert denied ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 2634, 206 L.Ed.2d 512 [2020]; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006]). County Court's oral colloquy did not mischaracterize the waiver of the right to appeal as “an absolute bar to the taking of a first-tier direct appeal” (Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d at 558, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970; see People v. Figueroa, 230 A.D.3d 1581, 1582, 218 N.Y.S.3d 871 [4th Dept. 2024], lv denied 42 N.Y.3d 1079, 227 N.Y.S.3d 564, 252 N.E.3d 503 [2025]). To the extent that defendant contends that the written waiver form he executed was defective, the oral colloquy, which followed the appropriate model colloquy, “cured th[e] [alleged] defect[s]” (People v. Hoose, 236 A.D.3d 1294, 1295, 229 N.Y.S.3d 741 [4th Dept. 2025], lv denied 44 N.Y.3d 993, 242 N.Y.S.3d 227, 269 N.E.3d 213 [2025] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Tandle, 238 A.D.3d 1503, 1504, 231 N.Y.S.3d 737 [4th Dept. 2025], lv denied 43 N.Y.3d 1059, 239 N.Y.S.3d 96, 265 N.E.3d 1113 [2025]; Williams, 228 A.D.3d at 1317, 212 N.Y.S.3d 887).

Defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal precludes our review of his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 255-256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145; Tandle, 238 A.D.3d at 1504, 231 N.Y.S.3d 737).