| People v Mattison |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04886 [74 AD3d 1495] |
| June 10, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andy R.Mattison, Appellant. |
—[*1] Joseph G. Fazzary, District Attorney, Watkins Glen, for respondent.
Rose, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schuyler County (Argetsinger, J.),rendered December 4, 2008, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of sexualabuse in the first degree and course of criminal conduct against a child in the first degree.
In full satisfaction of a 17-count indictment, defendant entered an Alford plea ofguilty to the crimes of sexual abuse in the first degree and course of criminal conduct against achild in the first degree. During the lengthy and thorough plea colloquy, defendant also agreed towaive his right to appeal. Then, after a written waiver was read to him and he was given theopportunity to consult with his attorneys, defendant indicated that he had no questions about hiswaiver. Approximately two months later, defendant retained new counsel and moved towithdraw his plea on the ground that he had not knowingly and intelligently entered his guiltyplea because he had binged on methamphetamines for 10 days and then slept for two days in jailbefore appearing in court to enter his plea. Following a hearing at which defendant presentedonly his own testimony, County Court denied the motion. At sentencing, defendant refused tosign the written appeal waiver. Nevertheless, the court sentenced him as a second felonyoffender to the promised terms of imprisonment. Defendant now appeals.
We cannot agree that defendant's failure to sign the written waiver made his prior oralwaiver of the right to appeal ineffective. County Court had fully explained the appeal rightsbeing waived, read the proposed written waiver to defendant and provided him with an [*2]opportunity to confer with counsel, and he agreed to waive his rightto appeal in return for the People's agreement to the plea bargain (see People v Hayes, 71 AD3d1187, 1188 [2010]; People vMorales, 68 AD3d 1356, 1357 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 803 [2010]).Accordingly, we find that his oral waiver was valid and it was not conditioned in any way uponhis later execution of the written form.
Next, there is nothing in this record to indicate an abuse of County Court's discretion indenying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea. The court's inquiries during the plea colloquyas to defendant's state of mind and possible use of illegal drugs were thorough and elicited noanswers suggesting any sort of mental impairment. In addition, defendant's self-serving claimthat he was under the influence of methamphetamine at the time of the plea is contrary to thecourt's own impressions of him during the plea colloquy (see People v Williams, 35 AD3d 971, 972 [2006], lvdenied 8 NY3d 928 [2007]; Peoplev Criscitello, 32 AD3d 1112, 1113-1114 [2006]; People v Fletcher, 24 AD3d 127, 128 [2005], lv denied 6NY3d 812 [2006].
Finally, defendant's valid waiver of appeal precludes his argument that his counsel providedineffective assistance except to the extent that it may have impacted the voluntariness of his plea(see People v Leonard, 63 AD3d1278, 1278 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 797 [2009]; People v Perry, 50 AD3d 1244,1245 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 963 [2008]; People v McDuffie, 43 AD3d 559, 560 [2007], lv denied 9NY3d 992 [2007]). Here, the alleged failures of counsel to sufficiently oppose a motion to quashand then review the relevant materials that were produced anyway are not born out by the recordand, in any event, would not implicate the voluntariness of defendant's plea (see People vMcDuffie, 43 AD3d at 560). Also, at the time of the plea, defendant declared himselfsatisfied with the representation of his two attorneys, which resulted in an extremely favorableplea bargain (see People vSingletary, 51 AD3d 1334, 1335 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 741 [2008]).
Peters, J.P., Malone Jr., Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.