It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of three counts of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [b]) and one count of attempted robbery in the second degree (§§ 110.00, 160.10 [2] [b]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, his unqualified waiver of the right to appeal is valid and encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence ( see People v. Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827; People v. Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737). Although defendant's further contention that Supreme Court failed to apprehend the extent of its discretion in imposing a period of postrelease supervision is not encompassed by the waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v. Porter, 9 AD3d 887, lv denied 3 NY3d 710; People v. Stanley, 309 AD2d 1254), we conclude that defendant's contention lacks merit. "The court's statement . . . with respect to the imposition of a five-year period of postrelease supervision does not, without more, indicate that the court erroneously believed that it lacked discretion to impose a shorter period" ( Porter, 9 AD3d at 887; see People v. Tyes, 9 AD3d 899, lv denied 3 NY3d 682; cf. Stanley, 309 AD2d at 1254-1255).