| People v Joslin |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 05713 [130 AD3d 1093] |
| July 2, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Daniel G. Joslin, Appellant. |
Teresa C. Mulliken, Harpersfield, for appellant.
Richard D. Northrup Jr., District Attorney, Delhi (John L. Hubbard of counsel), forrespondent.
Lahtinen, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Delaware County(Becker, J.), rendered January 14, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty ofthe crime of rape in the first degree (two counts).
Defendant was charged in an indictment with criminal sexual act in the first degree(two counts), sexual abuse in the first degree and course of sexual contact against a childin the first degree, stemming from allegations that he subjected two children to acts ofsexual contact when they were both 11 years old. The indictment also charged defendantwith rape in the first degree (two counts), based upon allegations that he subjected one ofthe victims to sexual intercourse by forcible compulsion when the victim was an adult.Defendant pleaded guilty to the two rape charges in full satisfaction of the indictmentand waived his right to appeal. County Court sentenced defendant in accordance with theterms of the plea agreement to concurrent prison terms of 10 years, to be followed by 20years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that County Court's failure toredact certain statements and information contained in the presentence investigationreport violated his due process rights. Defendant does not contest the validity of hiswaiver of the right to appeal, and our review of the record confirms that the waiver wasknowing, intelligent and voluntary. Inasmuch as the failure to redact informationcontained in the presentence investigation report "does not involve a right ofconstitutional dimension going to 'the very heart of the process' " (People v Lopez, 6 NY3d248, 255 [2006], quoting People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227, 230 [2000]),defendant's challenge to County Court's denial of his application to redact the [*2]information is precluded by his appeal waiver (see People v Guyette, 121AD3d 1430, 1431 [2014]; People v Abdul, 112 AD3d 644, 645 [2013], lvdenied 22 NY3d 1136 [2014]; People v Moquette, 200 AD2d 854, 854[1994], lv denied 83 NY2d 874 [1994]).
Peters, P.J., Garry and Devine, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.