People v Washburn
2010 NY Slip Op 06664 [76 AD3d 1120]
September 23, 2010
Appellate Division, Third Department
As corrected through Wednesday, October 27, 2010


The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v EdwardWashburn, Appellant.

[*1]Rachel Sutel Sherman, Troy, for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Beth G. Cozzolino, District Attorney, Hudson (H. Neal Conolly of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Nichols, J.), renderedApril 27, 2009, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of assault in the seconddegree and criminal contempt in the first degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him with assault in thesecond degree and criminal contempt in the first degree. The People and defendant agreed to ajoint recommendation of an aggregate sentence of five years in prison followed by three years ofpostrelease supervision, but, ultimately, left the matter to the discretion of County Court.Defendant also waived his right to appeal, preserving only his right to appeal from a sentencegreater than the joint recommendation. At the sentencing hearing, County Court adhered to theagreed-upon aggregate prison term of five years, but determined that the minimum allowableterm of postrelease supervision was five years, and sentenced defendant accordingly. WhenCounty Court offered defendant the opportunity to withdraw the plea in light of the deviationfrom the agreed amount of postrelease supervision, defendant declined the offer.

Defense counsel now seeks to be relieved of her assignment of representing defendant on theground that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal. Upon reviewing counsel'sbrief, defendant's pro se submission and the record, we agree. As defendant received theminimum term of postrelease supervision authorized by law (see Penal Law §70.45 [2]), declined to withdraw his plea and otherwise waived his right to appeal from theagreed-upon sentence, no issue for appeal exists (see CPL 470.20 [6]; People v Graham, 43 AD3d1205[*2][2007]; People v Smith, 32 AD3d 553, 554 n 1 [2006]; People vAnderson, 268 AD2d 228, 229 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 792 [2000]). Therefore,the judgment is affirmed and counsel's request to be relieved of her assignment is granted (seePeople v Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979 [1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]; seegenerally People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633 [2001]).

Mercure, J.P., Rose, Malone Jr., Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.