Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. EDGAR MILLS, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
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 two counts of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10[2] [a] ). We reject defendant's contention that the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid. Contrary to defendant's contention, Supreme Court “did not improperly conflate the waiver of the right to appeal with those rights automatically forfeited by a guilty plea” (People v. Bentley, 63 AD3d 1624, 1625, lv denied 13 NY3d 742; see People v. Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264; People v. Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256). Moreover, the court engaged defendant “in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v. Burt, 101 AD3d 1729, 1730, lv denied 20 NY3d 1060 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal, which specifically included a waiver of the right to challenge the severity of the sentence, encompasses his contention that the sentence imposed is unduly harsh and severe (see Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255–256; People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 737; cf. People v. Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928).
Inasmuch as “no mention of youthful offender status was made on the record before defendant waived his right to appeal, ․ defendant's valid waiver does not encompass his challenge to the court's denial of youthful offender status” (People v. Weathington [appeal No. 2], 141 AD3d 1173, 1174; see People v. Matsulavage, 121 AD3d 1581, 1581, lv denied 24 NY3d 1045). We nonetheless conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant defendant youthful offender status (see People v. Ford, 144 AD3d 1682, 1683, lv denied 28 NY3d 1184), and we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to adjudicate defendant a youthful offender (see Matsulavage, 121 AD3d at 1581).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: KA 16–01035
Decided: June 09, 2017
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)