| People v Fling |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 08156 [112 AD3d 1001] |
| December 5, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vCalvin H. Fling, Jr., Appellant. |
—[*1] James A. Murphy III, District Attorney, Ballston Spa (Nicholas E. Tishler ofcounsel), for respondent.
Lahtinen, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County(Scarano, J.), rendered June 22, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of thecrime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.
Defendant waived indictment and agreed to be prosecuted by a superior courtinformation charging him with criminal possession of a controlled substance in thesecond degree. In conjunction with his plea of guilty to that charge, he waived his rightto appeal his conviction and sentence orally and in a written waiver. He was thereaftersentenced as a second felony offender, in accordance with the plea agreement, to6½ years in prison followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendantnow appeals, contending that his appeal waiver is invalid and that his sentence is harshand excessive.
We affirm. Despite defendant's contention otherwise, we find that he knowinglywaived his right to appeal both his plea and sentence. In our view, defendant wasproperly advised regarding the nature of the appeal rights he was waiving and theconsequences of doing so (seePeople v Lopez, 97 AD3d 853, 853 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1027[2012]; cf. People vMaracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]; People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264-265 [2011]). Evenif we accept defendant's argument that one of the statements that County Court madewhile discussing the waiver was ambiguous, any possible confusion was clearly resolvedin the written [*2]waiver, which defendant acknowledgedthat he signed after fully discussing its meaning with counsel (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d737, 738 [2006]). As it stands, the record confirms that defendant was made awareof the appropriate information to make a knowing and voluntary choice (see People v Frasier, 105AD3d 1079, 1080 [2013]; People v White, 96 AD3d 1299, 1299-1300 [2012], lvdenied 19 NY3d 1029 [2012]). Given our conclusion that defendant validly waivedhis right to appeal, we are precluded from considering his claim that the sentenceimposed is harsh or excessive (see People v Lopez, 97 AD3d at 853-854).
Peters, P.J., Spain and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.