Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Jane I. Yoon of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Robert J. Shoemaker of Counsel), for Respondent.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:
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 defendant's contention, his waiver of the right to appeal is valid (
see generally
People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256,
811 N.Y.S.2d 623,
844 N.E.2d 1145 ;
People v. Weinstock, 129 A.D.3d 1663, 1663,
11 N.Y.S.3d 782 ;
People v. Smith,
122 A.D.3d 1300, 1301,
995 N.Y.S.2d 881,
lv. denied
25 N.Y.3d 1172,
15 N.Y.S.3d 303,
36 N.E.3d 106 ). The “ plea colloquy, together with the written waiver of the right to appeal, adequately apprised defendant that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” (
People v. Arney, 120 A.D.3d 949, 949,
990 N.Y.S.2d 752 [internal quotation marks omitted];
see
People v. Buske,
87 A.D.3d 1354, 1354,
930 N.Y.S.2d 155,
lv. denied
18 N.Y.3d 882,
939 N.Y.S.2d 751,
963 N.E.2d 128 ). We reject defendant's further contention that the written waiver of appeal is unenforceable because it contained certain nonwaivable rights. “Any nonwaivable [rights] purportedly encompassed by the waiver ‘are excluded from the scope of the waiver [and] the remainder of the waiver is valid and enforceable’ ” (
People v. Neal, 56 A.D.3d 1211, 1211,
867 N.Y.S.2d 612,
lv. denied
12 N.Y.3d 761,
876 N.Y.S.2d 712,
904 N.E.2d 849 ;
see
People v. Henion, 110 A.D.3d 1349, 1350,
973 N.Y.S.2d 857,
lv. denied
22 N.Y.3d 1088,
981 N.Y.S.2d 674,
4 N.E.3d 976 ;
People v. Gruber, 108 A.D.3d 877, 878,
969 N.Y.S.2d 586,
lv. denied
22 N.Y.3d 956,
977 N.Y.S.2d 187,
999 N.E.2d 552 ;
People v. Umber, 2 A.D.3d 1051, 1052,
769 N.Y.S.2d 632,
lv. denied
2 N.Y.3d 747,
778 N.Y.S.2d 472,
810 N.E.2d 925 ). Defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his 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. Braxton,
129 A.D.3d 1674, 1675,
10 N.Y.S.3d 791 ;
People v. Putnam, 50 A.D.3d 1514, 1514, 855 N.Y.S.2d 785, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 963, 863 N.Y.S.2d 147, 893 N.E.2d 453 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, WHALEN, and DeJOSEPH, JJ., concur.