PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS (2008)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10[2][b] ).  The record establishes that County Court asked defendant during the plea colloquy, “Do you also as part of your plea of guilty waive your right to appeal any and all issues?”   We agree with defendant that the court's question was misleading because it implied that “the right to appeal is automatically extinguished upon entry of a guilty plea” (People v. Moyett, 7 N.Y.3d 892, 893, 826 N.Y.S.2d 597, 860 N.E.2d 59;  see People v. Billingslea, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 257, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145).   We conclude, however, that the waiver by defendant of the right to appeal is valid because the record establishes that the court otherwise properly conveyed to defendant “the distinction between the right to appeal and other trial rights forfeited incident to a guilty plea” (Moyett, 7 N.Y.3d at 893, 826 N.Y.S.2d 597, 860 N.E.2d 59).

 The contentions of defendant with respect to the court's suppression ruling are encompassed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754) and in any event, those contentions lack merit.   The police had reasonable suspicion to believe that defendant was involved in the robbery and thus were entitled to detain him in order to conduct a showup identification procedure (see People v. Foster, 85 N.Y.2d 1012, 1014, 630 N.Y.S.2d 968, 654 N.E.2d 1216;  People v. Martinez, 39 A.D.3d 1159, 1160, 834 N.Y.S.2d 794, lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 867, 840 N.Y.S.2d 896, 872 N.E.2d 1202), and the showup identification procedure was not unduly suggestive (see People v. Delarosa, 28 A.D.3d 1186, 813 N.Y.S.2d 610, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 811, 822 N.Y.S.2d 486, 855 N.E.2d 802;  People v. Matthews, 24 A.D.3d 1306, 805 N.Y.S.2d 907, lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 850, 816 N.Y.S.2d 756, 849 N.E.2d 979).

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

MEMORANDUM: