PEOPLE v. WORTHY (2007)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20).   The contention of defendant that his plea was coerced and thus was not knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently entered “is belied by [his] statement during the plea proceeding that [he] was not threatened, coerced or otherwise influenced against [his] will into pleading guilty” (People v. Beaty, 303 A.D.2d 965, 755 N.Y.S.2d 911, lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 559, 763 N.Y.S.2d 816, 795 N.E.2d 42;  see People v. Gradia, 28 A.D.3d 1206, 1206-1207, 812 N.Y.S.2d 922, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 756, 819 N.Y.S.2d 882, 853 N.E.2d 253).   Defendant's conclusory and unsubstantiated claim of innocence also is belied by his statements during the plea proceeding (see People v. Kimmons, 39 A.D.3d 1180, 834 N.Y.S.2d 421;  People v. Jackson, 34 A.D.3d 1304, 824 N.Y.S.2d 552, lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 846, 830 N.Y.S.2d 705, 862 N.E.2d 797, 8 N.Y.3d 986, 838 N.Y.S.2d 489, 869 N.E.2d 665).   Contrary to the further contention of defendant, the record reflects that his waiver of the right to appeal was the result of a knowing and voluntary choice (see People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 280, 590 N.Y.S.2d 46, 604 N.E.2d 108;  People v. Ludlow, 42 A.D.3d 941, 840 N.Y.S.2d 859), and that waiver encompasses defendant's challenge to Supreme Court's suppression ruling (see People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754;  People v. Pan Zhi Feng, 15 A.D.3d 862, 789 N.Y.S.2d 592, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 809, 812, 803 N.Y.S.2d 38, 41, 836 N.E.2d 1161, 1164).

We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

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

MEMORANDUM: