People v Hill

Annotate this Case
People v Hill 2019 NY Slip Op 09204 Decided on December 20, 2019 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 December 20, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CURRAN, WINSLOW, AND BANNISTER, JJ.
1236 KA 19-00107

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

v

MARQUIS M. HILL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



DAVID J. FARRUGIA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (THERESA L. PREZIOSO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

CAROLINE A. WOJTASZEK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (LAURA T. JORDAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.



Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), rendered May 4, 2018. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted assault in the first 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 first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.10 [1]). Contrary to defendant's contention, his waiver of the right to appeal is valid (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). Supreme Court engaged defendant in "an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice" (People v Hicks, 89 AD3d 1480, 1480 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 924 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]), and the record establishes that he "understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty" (Lopez, 6 NY3d at 256). The valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses defendant's challenge to the severity of his sentence (see id. at 255-256).

Entered: December 20, 2019

Mark W. Bennett

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.