| People v Jackson |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01451 [48 AD3d 885] |
| February 21, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v HoseaJackson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard J. McNally, Jr., District Attorney, Troy (Anne L. Coonrad of counsel), forrespondent.
Cardona, P.J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Rensselaer County (McGrath,J.), rendered July 12, 2006, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of burglaryin the second degree and perjury in the first degree.
In satisfaction of two separate indictments, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of burglaryin the second degree and one count of perjury in the first degree. He executed oral and writtenwaivers of his right to appeal and was thereafter sentenced in accordance with the pleaagreement.
Defendant now contends that his appeal waiver was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary.However, the record of County Court's colloquy reveals that the court adequately explained todefendant that he was waiving his right to appeal and described the nature of that right "withoutlumping [it] into the panoply of trial rights automatically forfeited upon pleading guilty" (People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 257[2006]; see People v Romano, 45AD3d 910, 914 [2007]). Defendant unequivocally stated that he understood the nature of theright and agreed to waive it. This understanding was reiterated in the written waiver executed bydefendant in open court (see People vRamos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]). Moreover, "considering all the relevant facts andcircumstances surrounding the waiver, including the nature and terms of the agreement [*2]and the age, experience and background of the accused" (Peoplev Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 11 [1989]), we do not agree with defendant's claim that statementsmade by County Court at sentencing after execution of the written waiver were somisleading as to invalidate defendant's voluntary appeal waiver.
Finally, defendant's valid appeal waiver precludes his remaining arguments challengingCounty Court's suppression rulings (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; People v Mendez, 45 AD3d 1109,1110 [2007]; People v Scott, 31AD3d 816, 817 [2006]).
Mercure, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.