Opinion
108571.
11-16-2017
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. David LAWRENCE, Appellant.
Susan Patnode, Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Cynthia Feathers of counsel), for appellant. Mary E. Rain, District Attorney, Canton (Matthew L. Peabody of counsel), for respondent.
Susan Patnode, Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Cynthia Feathers of counsel), for appellant.
Mary E. Rain, District Attorney, Canton (Matthew L. Peabody of counsel), for respondent.
Before: McCARTHY, J.P., LYNCH, ROSE, CLARK and PRITZKER, JJ.
ROSE, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Champagne, J.), rendered May 9, 2016, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.
Defendant waived indictment and agreed to be prosecuted pursuant to a superior court information charging him with assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. In full satisfaction thereof, and consistent with the terms of the plea agreement, defendant subsequently pleaded guilty before County Court (Richards, J.) to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. The plea agreement required defendant to waive his right to appeal and did not include a sentencing commitment. County Court (Champagne, J.) thereafter sentenced defendant to a prison term of 1 ? to 4 years, prompting this appeal.
Contrary to defendant's assertion, we find that his combined oral and written waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 340–341, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 [2015] ; People v. Howe, 150 A.D.3d 1321, 1322, 54 N.Y.S.3d 190 [2017] ). The plea colloquy reflects that County Court (Richards, J.) advised defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the trial-related rights that he was forfeiting, and defendant, in turn, indicated that he understood the nature of the waiver. In addition, defendant executed a detailed written waiver in open court, wherein he specifically waived any right to challenge the severity of the sentence imposed, and County Court confirmed that defendant had read the waiver, understood its contents and had been afforded sufficient time to discuss the waiver with counsel. Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that defendant's waiver was valid (see People v. Tulip, 150 A.D.3d 1564, 1565, 52 N.Y.S.3d 679 [2017] ; People v. Howe, 150 A.D.3d at 1322, 54 N.Y.S.3d 190 ; People v. Bartlett, 148 A.D.3d 1471, 1471–1472, 50 N.Y.S.3d 616 [2017] ; People v. Hall, 147 A.D.3d 1151, 1151, 47 N.Y.S.3d 147 [2017], lv. denied 29 N.Y.3d 1080, –––N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d –––– [2017] ). In light of the valid appeal waiver, defendant's challenge to the severity of his sentence is precluded (see People v. Lambert, 151 A.D.3d 1119, 1120, 55 N.Y.S.3d 526 [2017], lv. denied 29 N.Y.3d 1092, 63 N.Y.S.3d 9, 85 N.E.3d 104 [2017] ; People v. Dubois, 150 A.D.3d 1562, 1563, 55 N.Y.S.3d 513 [2017] ).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
McCARTHY, J.P., LYNCH, CLARK and PRITZKER, JJ., concur.