| People v Stevens |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 07491 [166 AD3d 1167] |
| November 8, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Scott Stevens, Appellant. |
Adam H. Van Buskirk, Auburn, for appellant.
Craig P. Carriero, District Attorney, Malone (Jennifer M. Hollis of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main Jr., J.),rendered November 21, 2016, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed asentence of imprisonment.
In June 2015, defendant pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with burglaryin the third degree (three counts), grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminalpossession of stolen property in the fourth degree in contemplation of receiving a splitsentence of local jail time and probation and participation in the Franklin County adulttreatment court. The plea agreement also required defendant to waive his right to appeal.Defendant was accepted into treatment court and thereafter was sentenced to five yearsof probation subject to various terms and conditions—with the first 180 days to beserved in the local jail. After defendant twice violated the terms of his probation, CountyCourt revoked his probation in November 2016 and resentenced defendant to theagreed-upon prison term of 1
Contrary to defendant's assertion, we find that his waiver of appeal—as setforth during the November 2016 proceedings—was valid. The record reflects that,prior to accepting defendant's admission to his second violation of probation, CountyCourt explained the nature of waiver to defendant—"distinguish[ing] defendant'sappellate rights from the other rights that defendant would be forfeiting by admitting thathe violated the terms and conditions of his probation" (People v Bailey, 157 AD3d1133, 1134 [2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 981 [2018]). Additionally, defensecounsel assured County Court that he had discussed the waiver with [*2]defendant, and defendant "confirmed his understanding andacceptance [there]of" (id.). We therefore are satisfied that defendant knowingly,intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. In light of defendant's validwaiver, his challenge to the severity of the resentence imposed following the revocationof his probation is precluded (see id.; People v Ducheneaux, 97 AD3d 852, 853 [2012]).
Garry, P.J., Clark, Mulvey, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Ordered that thejudgment is affirmed.
Footnote *:Prior to making therequired admissions, defendant again waived his right to appeal.