PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS (2007)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [4] ).   Contrary to the contention of defendant, his waiver of the right to appeal was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered (see generally People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 280, 590 N.Y.S.2d 46, 604 N.E.2d 108).   The valid waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses his contentions concerning the denial of his request for youthful offender status (see People v. Scott, 31 A.D.3d 1190, 1191, 817 N.Y.S.2d 548;  People v. Dorman, 5 A.D.3d 1094, 773 N.Y.S.2d 320, lv. denied 2 N.Y.3d 798, 781 N.Y.S.2d 297, 814 N.E.2d 469) and the severity of the sentence (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145;  People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 737, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46).   In any event, those contentions are without merit.   Although defendant met the eligibility requirements for youthful offender status, Supreme Court carefully considered the request to be considered a youthful offender and stated the reasons for its denial (see generally People v. Smith, 286 A.D.2d 878, 730 N.Y.S.2d 893, lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 641, 744 N.Y.S.2d 770, 771 N.E.2d 843).   We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for youthful offender status (see People v. Ariola, 15 A.D.3d 882, 883, 789 N.Y.S.2d 389, lv. dismissed 5 N.Y.3d 758, 801 N.Y.S.2d 253, 834 N.E.2d 1263).   We further conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

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

MEMORANDUM: