| People v Keating |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 04430 [96 AD3d 1107] |
| June 7, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas S.Keating, Also Known as Tomas Keating, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kevin C. Kortright, District Attorney, Fort Edward (Andrew J. Proler of counsel), forrespondent.
Peters, P.J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County(McKeighan, J.), rendered April 8, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of thecrimes of attempted disseminating indecent material to minors in the first degree and failure toregister under the Sex Offender Registration Act.
Pursuant to an agreement resolving two indictments against him, defendant waived his rightto appeal in each case and pleaded guilty to attempted disseminating indecent material to minorsin the first degree and failure to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act. County Courtthereafter denied defendant's motion to withdraw the plea and imposed the agreed-uponaggregate prison sentence of 2
Defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal in both cases.During the combined plea allocution, County Court distinguished the right to appeal from thoserights forfeited by pleading guilty. Defendant then stated that he understood the consequences ofwaiving his right to appeal, discussed the written appeal waivers with counsel to his satisfaction,and executed them in open court. Thus, we reject defendant's contentions that he [*2]did not comprehend the rights he was giving up, or that CountyCourt was obliged to address the written waivers separately during the colloquy (see People v Budwick, 82 AD3d1447, 1448 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 857 [2011]; People v Vaughns, 70 AD3d 1123,1124 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 758 [2010]).
Defendant's challenge to County Court's denial of his oral application to withdraw his guiltyplea, which survives his appeal waivers (see People v Shurock, 83 AD3d 1342, 1343 [2011]), is withoutmerit. During the plea colloquy, defendant was fully apprised of the terms of the plea agreementand the rights he would be giving up, discussed the ramifications of pleading guilty with counsel,expressed his understanding of them and freely elected to proceed. Defendant further declaredhimself to be satisfied with defense counsel during the colloquy, notwithstanding his priorconcerns about counsel's performance. Indeed, defendant pointed to no specific basis for hismotion to withdraw, instead asserting in conclusory fashion that "all of the facts andcircumstances" of the case supported it. Inasmuch as nothing in the record suggests thatdefendant's guilty plea was anything less than knowing, voluntary and intelligent, County Courtproperly denied his application without conducting any further inquiry (see CPL 220.60[3]; People v Carmona, 66 AD3d1240, 1241 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 799 [2010]; People v Smith, 270AD2d 719, 720 [2000]).
We have examined defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim and, to the extent itimplicates the voluntariness of his plea and thus survives his appeal waiver, find it to be withoutmerit.
Lahtinen, Spain, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.