DONERLSON, PATIQUE, PEOPLE v

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department [603] KA 14-01249 PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, PERADOTTO, AND SCUDDER, JJ. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PATIQUE DONERLSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KIMBERLY F. DUGUAY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O’BRIEN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (James J. Piampiano, J.), rendered May 22, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (two counts). It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of two counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.25 [1])). Contrary to the contention of defendant, the record establishes that she knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 ), and that valid waiver constitutes a general unrestricted waiver that forecloses any challenge by her to the severity of the sentence (see id. at 255-266 ; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 ; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 ). To the extent that defendant contends that the “written waiver of [the right to] appeal is unenforceable because it contained certain nonwaivable rights[, a]ny 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 Williams, 132 AD3d 1291, 1291 , lv denied 26 NY3d 1151 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Gibson, 147 AD3d 1507, 1508 ; People v Mead, 133 AD3d 1257, 1258 ). Entered: April 28, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court