Opinion
No. 110533B
09-22-2022
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ramel Williams, Appellant.
Lisa A. Burgess, Indian Lake, for appellant. J. Anthony Jordan, District Attorney, Fort Edward (Taylor Fitzsimmons of counsel), for respondent.
Calendar Date: September 2, 2022
Lisa A. Burgess, Indian Lake, for appellant.
J. Anthony Jordan, District Attorney, Fort Edward (Taylor Fitzsimmons of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Aarons, Reynolds Fitzgerald and McShan, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County (Kelly S. McKeighan, J.), rendered June 15, 2018, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and waived his right to appeal. County Court sentenced defendant, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of eight years, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.
This Court previously granted defense counsel's application to withdraw and assigned new counsel to represent defendant on appeal (204 A.D.3d 1161 [2022]).
Contrary to defendant's assertion, we find that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. Defendant was advised that a waiver of the right to appeal was a term and condition of his plea agreement. Further, County Court adequately explained the separate and distinct nature of the waiver, which defendant acknowledged that he understood (see People v Stockwell, 203 A.D.3d 1407, 1408 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 1036 [2022]; People v Thaxton, 191 A.D.3d 1166, 1167 [3d Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 960 [2021]). Moreover, after conferring with counsel, defendant executed a comprehensive written waiver in open court that expressly informed him that certain appellate issues survive the waiver, and defendant confirmed that he reviewed the written waiver with counsel and understood its contents and ramifications (see People v Ruest, 206 A.D.3d 1174, 1174-1175 [3d Dept 2022]; People v Stockwell, 203 A.D.3d at 1408). In light of the foregoing, we are satisfied that defendant's appeal waiver is valid and, as a result, defendant's challenge to his sentence as harsh and excessive has been foreclosed (see People v Whitton, 201 A.D.3d 1259, 1260 [3d Dept 2022]; People v Carter, 200 A.D.3d 1312, 1313 [3d Dept 2021]).
Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Aarons, Reynolds Fitzgerald and McShan, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.