People v Edie
2012 NY Slip Op 08180 [100 AD3d 1262]
November 29, 2012
Appellate Division, Third Department
As corrected through Wednesday, December 26, 2012
As corrected through Wednesday, December 26, 2012


The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric L. Edie,Appellant.

[*1]James P. Milstein, Public Defender, Albany (Theresa M. Suozzi of counsel), forappellant.

P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Steven M. Sharp of counsel), forrespondent.

Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Breslin, J.),rendered October 13, 2010, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglaryin the second degree.

Defendant waived indictment and, in satisfaction of numerous outstanding felony charges,pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him with a single count of burglary in thesecond degree and waived his right to appeal. Although County Court made no promises as tosentencing, the plea agreement called for defendant to be sentenced to no more than 10 years inprison followed by three years of postrelease supervision. County Court thereafter sentenceddefendant to nine years in prison and three years of postrelease supervision. Defendant nowappeals—primarily contending that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive.

We affirm. Contrary to defendant's assertion, the record establishes that County Courtseparately and fully explained the rights encompassed by the appeal waiver and, further, thatdefendant understood and freely agreed to waive such rights (see People v Santana, 95 AD3d 1503, 1503 [2012]; People v Tabbott, 61 AD3d 1183,1184 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 750 [2009]). However, because County Court made nocommitment as to sentencing and defendant [*2]was not advisedof the maximum term of imprisonment that could be imposed if he failed to comply with theterms of the plea agreement, his otherwise valid waiver of the right to appeal does not encompasshis present challenge to the severity of his sentence (see People v Kelly, 96 AD3d 1700, 1700 [2012]; People v Forkey, 72 AD3d 1209,1211 [2010]; People v Powers, 302 AD2d 685, 686 [2003]; People v Ballinger,299 AD2d 738, 739 [2002]; comparePeople v Mills, 85 AD3d 1448, 1449 [2011]; People v Bove, 64 AD3d 812, 813 [2009], lv denied 13NY3d 858 [2009]). That said, we nonetheless find no extraordinary circumstances warranting areduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Kelly, 96 AD3d at 1700;People v Powers, 302 AD2d at 686; People v Ballinger, 299 AD2d at 739;People v Shea, 254 AD2d 512, 513 [1998]).

Peters, P.J., Rose, Malone Jr. and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.


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.