Opinion
109372
11-08-2018
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles BRIDGE, Appellant.
Aaron A. Louridas, Delmar, for appellant. D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.
Aaron A. Louridas, Delmar, for appellant.
D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered March 10, 2017, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of driving while intoxicated.
In satisfaction of a two-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated and executed a waiver of his right to appeal in open court. County Court sentenced him, in accordance with the plea agreement, to 1 to 3 years in prison. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. We are not persuaded by defendant's contention that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid. The record reflects that County Court adequately explained to defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal was "separate and distinct" from the trial-related rights automatically forfeited by his guilty plea, and defendant acknowledged that he understood the nature of the waiver of appeal (see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 264, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 [2011] ; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006] ; People v. Nieves, 163 A.D.3d 1359, 1359, 77 N.Y.S.3d 908 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1006, 86 N.Y.S.3d 765, 111 N.E.3d 1121 [Sept. 12, 2018] ; People v. King, 163 A.D.3d 1352, 1352, 77 N.Y.S.3d 905 [2018] ). In addition, defendant executed in open court a detailed written waiver of appeal, which included any challenge to the fairness of the sentence, and the court confirmed that defendant had an opportunity to discuss the consequences of the waiver with his attorney and that defendant had no further questions about the waiver of appeal (see People v. Nieves, 163 A.D.3d at 1359, 77 N.Y.S.3d 908 ; People v. Hess, 150 A.D.3d 1560, 1560, 52 N.Y.S.3d 686 [2017] ; People v. Cuomo, 144 A.D.3d 1266, 1267, 40 N.Y.S.3d 288 [2016] ). Accordingly, the combined oral colloquy and written waiver of appeal demonstrate that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence (see People v. Chaney, 160 A.D.3d 1281, 1282–1283, 76 N.Y.S.3d 257 [2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1146, 83 N.Y.S.3d 427, 108 N.E.3d 501 [2018] ; People v. Lavalley, 150 A.D.3d 1339, 1340, 51 N.Y.S.3d 439 [2017] ). As the court abided by its sentencing commitment, defendant's valid waiver of appeal precludes his claim that the sentence was harsh and excessive (see People v. Cuchelo, 155 A.D.3d 1189, 1190, 63 N.Y.S.3d 255 [2017] ; People v. Cuomo, 144 A.D.3d at 1267, 40 N.Y.S.3d 288 ).
Finally, under the circumstances of this case, including that defendant had already been granted a request for an adjournment of sentencing and received the negotiated sentence, we conclude that County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request of defendant's new attorney for an adjournment to permit further preparation for sentencing (cf. People v. Stickey, 114 A.D.3d 532, 532, 980 N.Y.S.2d 118 [2014], lvs denied 22 N.Y.3d 1203, 986 N.Y.S.2d 42, 9 N.E.3d 918 [2014]; People v. Orminski, 108 A.D.3d 864, 865–866, 968 N.Y.S.2d 266 [2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 958, 977 N.Y.S.2d 189, 999 N.E.2d 554 [2013] ). Moreover, both the attorney and defendant addressed the court at sentencing, and there is no reason to believe that counsel — who was sufficiently familiar with the case, made appropriate arguments at sentencing and had an opportunity to review the presentence investigation report prior to sentencing — could have persuaded the court to impose a more lenient sentence if he had received more time to prepare (see People v. Lasso, 115 A.D.3d 563, 564, 982 N.Y.S.2d 312 [2014], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 1039, 993 N.Y.S.2d 253, 17 N.E.3d 508 [2014] ; People v. Jannestil, 105 A.D.3d 560, 561, 963 N.Y.S.2d 230 [2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 1041, 981 N.Y.S.2d 375, 4 N.E.3d 387 [2013] ).
Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.