| People v Williams |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06723 [76 AD3d 1141] |
| September 30, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v VernonWilliams, Appellant. |
—[*1] Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Teresi, J.), rendered March19, 2009, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of acontrolled substance in the third degree.
In satisfaction of a two-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of acontrolled substance in the third degree. Under the terms of the plea agreement, he was to besentenced as a second felony offender to five years in prison, to be followed by three years ofpostrelease supervision. He was sentenced accordingly and he now appeals.
Defendant asserts that the sentence imposed is harsh and excessive. While a valid waiver ofthe right to appeal precludes a defendant from raising such a claim (see People v Singh, 73 AD3d1384, 1385 [2010]; People vGlynn, 73 AD3d 1290, 1292 [2010]), we do not find that the waiver made by defendanthere was valid. Notably, when the plea agreement was initially presented, the waiver was notreferenced even though County Court specifically asked the parties if the recitation constitutedthe full agreement. In addition, although defendant gave an affirmative response when asked if hewaived his right to appeal, the record does not indicate that he fully understood this right, thatCounty Court comprehensively explained its nature as separate and distinct from the other rightsdefendant was waiving, or that defendant discussed the issue with counsel. Therefore, the waiverwas not knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v Middleton, 72 AD3d 1336, 1337 [2010]; see also People v Lopez, 6 NY3d248, 256-257 [2006]).[*2]
Nevertheless, we find no merit to defendant's claim thathis sentence was harsh and excessive. Defendant has a lengthy criminal record, and he wasapprehended while selling 28 envelopes of heroin to an undercover police officer. In view of this,and given that he was sentenced in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, we find noextraordinary circumstances nor any abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence inthe interest of justice (see People v Cartwright, 301 AD2d 682 [2003]).
Mercure, J.P., Spain, Lahtinen, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.