| People v Mosher |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08308 [45 AD3d 970] |
| November 8, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andrew T.Mosher, Appellant. |
—[*1] Joseph A. McBride, District Attorney, Norwich (Michael J. Genute of counsel), forrespondent.
Spain, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chenango County (Daley, J.),rendered June 8, 2006, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of kidnapping inthe second degree.
Defendant waived indictment and agreed to be prosecuted by a superior court informationcharging him with criminal sexual act in the first degree, kidnapping in the second degree andunlawful imprisonment in the first degree. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement whichincluded a waiver of his right to appeal, defendant pleaded guilty to kidnapping in the seconddegree in full satisfaction of all charges. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant to theagreed-upon term of 20 years in prison followed by the requisite five years of postreleasesupervision. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Despite defendant's protestations to the contrary, we find that he knowingly,voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal. In open court, defendant assented to andexecuted a written appeal waiver which reflected that defense counsel had advised him of hisright to appeal; County Court explained the significance of the appeal waiver and defendantconfirmed that he had discussed the matter with his attorney and that he understood theconsequences of the waiver (see Peoplev Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; People v Lopez, 6 [*2]NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273[1992]; People v Wright, 34 AD3d940, 940 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 886 [2007]; cf. People v Calvi, 89 NY2d868, 870-871 [1996]).
We find similarly unavailing defendant's allegation, which survives the appeal waiver, thathis plea was not entered voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently (see People v Seaberg,74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]). The plea minutes demonstrate that defendant was fully informed of hisrights and the ramifications of pleading guilty, including the trial right he would be foregoing, allof which he acknowledged he understood, and he freely admitted the facts underlying the crimeand pleaded guilty to its commission (see People v Tedesco, 38 AD3d 1102, 1103 [2007], lvdenied 8 NY3d 991 [2007]; Peoplev Heckerman, 37 AD3d 953, 953 [2007]). With regard to defendant's attack on thefactual sufficiency of his plea allocution, that claim is foreclosed by his valid waiver of appeal(see People v Morgan, 39 AD3d889, 889 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 848 [2007]; People v Bagley, 34 AD3d 992, 992 [2006], lv denied 8NY3d 878 [2007]), as is his challenge to the severity of his sentence (see People v Lopez,6 NY3d at 255-256; People v Clow,10 AD3d 803, 804 [2004]; see alsoPeople v Nason, 31 AD3d 818, 819 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 869 [2006]).
We have reviewed the remaining assertions set forth by defendant in his pro se supplementalbrief and find they largely concern matters outside the record, which are more properly reviewedin a CPL article 440 motion (see Peoplev Riddick, 40 AD3d 1259, 1260 [2007]), and are otherwise not supported by the recordon appeal.
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.