PEOPLE v. MANNING (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Roger McDonough, J.), rendered December 9, 2022 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of murder in the second degree.

Defendant was charged in a seven-count indictment with offenses relating to an incident on the afternoon of May 3, 2021, when he and an accomplice fired multiple gunshots toward a residence in the City of Albany.  The victim was struck in the hail of gunfire and died.  In full satisfaction of the indictment and other pending charges, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of murder in the second degree upon the understanding that he would be sentenced to 20 years to life in prison.  The agreement required defendant to waive his right to appeal and, during the plea proceedings, he agreed to do so orally and in writing.  Supreme Court thereafter imposed the agreed-upon sentence.  Defendant appeals.

We affirm.  Defendant's challenge to the validity of his appeal waiver is unpersuasive.  His “combined oral and written waiver are substantially similar to those that we recently found to be valid,” and our review of the plea colloquy and the detailed written waiver, which he executed in open court after consultation with counsel, confirms that he made a knowing, intelligent and voluntary decision to waive his right to appeal (People v. Lane, 233 A.D.3d 1207, 1208–1209, 223 N.Y.S.3d 428 [3d Dept. 2024], lv denied 43 N.Y.3d 945, 231 N.Y.S.3d 402, 257 N.E.3d 97 [2025];  see People v. Moses, 236 A.D.3d 1201, 1201–1202, 229 N.Y.S.3d 694 [3d Dept. 2025];  People v. Joseph, 227 A.D.3d 1233, 1234–1235 [3d Dept. 2024], lv denied 42 N.Y.3d 1053, 225 N.Y.S.3d 660, 250 N.E.3d 671 [2024]).  Defendant's suggestion that his “waiver cannot apply to his [further] challenge to the severity of the sentence because he was not specifically advised at the time of his plea of the maximum sentence he could face” is belied by the record and would, in any event, be meritless because “there [was] a specific sentence promise at the time of the waiver” that was honored (People v. Grant, 294 A.D.2d 671, 672, 742 N.Y.S.2d 695 [3d Dept. 2002], lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 730, 749 N.Y.S.2d 480, 779 N.E.2d 191 [2002];  see People v. Lococo, 92 N.Y.2d 825, 827, 677 N.Y.S.2d 57, 699 N.E.2d 416 [1998];  People v. Fusco, 74 A.D.3d 1583, 1584, 902 N.Y.S.2d 438 [3d Dept. 2010], lv denied 15 N.Y.3d 851, 909 N.Y.S.2d 28, 935 N.E.2d 820 [2010];  compare People v. Bowden, 177 A.D.3d 1037, 1039, 114 N.Y.S.3d 482 [3d Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 1157, 120 N.Y.S.3d 238, 142 N.E.3d 1140 [2020]).  As a result, his valid appeal waiver precludes his challenge to the severity of the agreed-upon sentence (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006];  People v. Sealey, 234 A.D.3d 1184, 1185, 225 N.Y.S.3d 470 [3d Dept. 2025];  People v. Joseph, 227 A.D.3d at 1234, 211 N.Y.S.3d 592).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Garry, P.J., Aarons, Pritzker, McShan and Corcoran, JJ., concur.