Opinion
111210
09-22-2022
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. April R. COOMBS, Appellant.
Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Kelly L. Egan of counsel), for appellant. Gary M. Pasqua, District Attorney, Canton (Dillon Bullard of counsel), for respondent.
Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Kelly L. Egan of counsel), for appellant.
Gary M. Pasqua, District Attorney, Canton (Dillon Bullard of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Ceresia, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Jerome J. Richards, J.), rendered June 4, 2018, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts).
In full satisfaction of a five-count indictment charging various drug-related offenses, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. Additionally, defendant pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging her with the same crime (stemming from conduct occurring on a different date than that charged in the indictment). The plea agreement, which was in full satisfaction of the respective accusatory instruments and other pending charges, contemplated that defendant would be sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of eight years followed by three years of postrelease supervision on each conviction – said terms to be served concurrently. In connection therewith, defendant also was required to waive her right to appeal. Defendant pleaded guilty in conformity with the plea agreement, County Court imposed the agreed-upon terms of imprisonment, and this appeal ensued.
We affirm. Defendant's challenge to the validity of her waiver of the right to appeal is unpersuasive. County Court explained that the waiver of appeal was separate and distinct from the trial-related rights that defendant would be forfeiting by pleading guilty and recited specific rights that would survive the waiver, and defendant, in turn, confirmed her understanding (see People v. Wiggins, 207 A.D.3d 947, 948, 170 N.Y.S.3d 514 [3d Dept. 2022] ; People v. Burnham, 206 A.D.3d 1368, 1368–1369, 168 N.Y.S.3d 914 [3d Dept. 2022] ). Additionally, defendant signed identical written waivers of the right to appeal in open court and indicated that she had read the waivers, understood their contents, had been afforded sufficient time to confer with counsel and had no questions regarding the appellate right being relinquished (see People v. LaPage, 207 A.D.3d 950, 951, 171 N.Y.S.3d 654 [3d Dept. 2022] ; People v. Dennis, 206 A.D.3d 1369, 1370, 168 N.Y.S.3d 905 [3d Dept. 2022] ). To the extent that the written waivers contained overbroad language, both the written waivers and County Court's oral colloquy made clear – and we are satisfied that defendant understood – that "some appellate review survived" ( People v. Sims, 207 A.D.3d 882, 883, 172 N.Y.S.3d 195 [3d Dept. 2022] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Under these circumstances, and as we otherwise discern no infirmities in the combined oral and written waivers, we find that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v. Whitton, 201 A.D.3d 1259, 1259–1260, 158 N.Y.S.3d 645 [3d Dept. 2022] ). In light of the valid appeal waiver, defendant's challenge to the perceived severity of the agreed-upon sentence is precluded (see People v. Devins, 206 A.D.3d 1365, 1367, 168 N.Y.S.3d 898 [3d Dept. 2022] ).
Garry, P.J., Lynch, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Ceresia, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.