Opinion
107937
05-03-2018
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Tariq ROYAL, Appellant.
Donnial K. Hinds, Albany, for appellant. P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Emily A. Schultz of counsel), for respondent.
Donnial K. Hinds, Albany, for appellant.
P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Emily A. Schultz of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Devine, Clark, Mulvey and Rumsey, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Devine, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Lynch, J.), rendered August 18, 2015, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, and in full satisfaction of a nine-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and waived his right to appeal the conviction and sentence. Consistent with the terms of the plea agreement, County Court sentenced defendant, as a second felony offender, to 4½ years in prison and three years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
We note that this appeal was previously withdrawn at defendant's request, and his subsequent motion to reinstate the appeal was recently granted.
--------
We affirm. Contrary to defendant's contention, his waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. County Court distinguished the right to appeal as separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited by a guilty plea, and defendant acknowledged that he signed and understood the written waiver after conferring with counsel regarding its contents (see People v. Hall, 147 A.D.3d 1151, 1151, 47 N.Y.S.3d 147 [2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1080, 64 N.Y.S.3d 170, 86 N.E.3d 257 [2017] ; People v. Dolberry, 147 A.D.3d 1149, 1150, 46 N.Y.S.3d 437 [2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1078, 64 N.Y.S.3d 167, 86 N.E.3d 254 [2017] ). Defendant's valid appeal waiver precludes his remaining contentions that his sentence is harsh and excessive and that County Court should have granted him judicial diversion to a substance abuse treatment program (see People v. Wood, 150 A.D.3d 1544, 1545, 52 N.Y.S.3d 682 [2017] ; People v. Roche, 106 A.D.3d 1328, 1329, 965 N.Y.S.2d 245 [2013] ).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Egan Jr., J.P., Clark, Mulvey and Rumsey, JJ., concur.