People v Anderson

Annotate this Case
People v Anderson 2016 NY Slip Op 07789 Decided on November 18, 2016 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 18, 2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
1000 KA 14-02131

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

v

DARRYL ANDERSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (TIMOTHY P. MURPHY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL J. FLAHERTY, JR., ACTING DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DONNA A. MILLING OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.



Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Thomas P. Franczyk, J.), rendered October 21, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted assault in the second degree.

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 attempted assault in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.05 [3]). We reject defendant's contention that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid. "[T]he record demonstrates that County Court engage[d] the 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 encompasses his contention that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256; see generally People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737).

Entered: November 18, 2016

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.