People v Duryea

2014 NY Slip Op 02306 [116 AD3d 709]

April 2, 2014

Appellate Division, Second Department

As corrected through Wednesday, May 28, 2014

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

—[*1]Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Alfred J. Cicale of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Glenn Green of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Suffolk County(Condon, J.), both rendered February 24, 2011, convicting him of burglary in the thirddegree (five counts) and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the first degree underindictment No. 750-09 and burglary in the third degree (three counts), unauthorized useof a motor vehicle in the first degree, grand larceny in the third degree (two counts),criminal mischief in the third degree, reckless driving, criminal possession of a controlledsubstance in the seventh degree, and resisting arrest under indictment No. 1083-10, uponhis pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant contends that the County Court's warnings concerning theconsequences of his failure to comply with the terms and conditions of his pleaagreement were insufficient. In the plea colloquy, the court set forth certain conditionsand adequately warned the defendant that it would impose eight consecutiveindeterminate terms of imprisonment of 21/3 to 7 years in the event that thedefendant breached any of the plea conditions. Contrary to the defendant's contention,the record discloses that the defendant was informed on multiple occasions that he wouldbe subject to an enhanced sentence, without the option of withdrawing his pleas, in theevent that he failed to comply with the conditions thereof (see People v Chander, 113AD3d 697 [2014]; People vAkhtar, 13 AD3d 383, 383-384 [2004]; People v Gonzalez, 300 AD2d150 [2002]; People v Guerra, 291 AD2d 410, 411 [2002]).

The defendant validly waived his right to appeal. At the plea allocution, the CountyCourt sufficiently advised the defendant of the nature of the right to appeal, and therecord establishes that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived thatright (see People v Lopez, 6NY3d 248, 254-255 [2006]; People v Eccleston, 113 AD3d 699 [2014]; cf. People v Bradshaw, 18NY3d 257 [2011]). Accordingly, appellate review of his contention that hisenhanced sentence is excessive is precluded by the appeal waiver (see People vLococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; People v Smith, 102 AD3d 896, 897 [2013]; People v Bullock, 54 AD3d959 [2008]; People vRuiz, 48 AD3d 834 [2008]; People v Miles, 268 AD2d 489, 489-490[2000]). Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Chambers and LaSalle, JJ., concur.