| People v Creighton |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 01523 [137 AD3d 1328] |
| March 3, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vWade Creighton, Appellant. |
Susan Patnode, Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (George J. Hoffman Jr. ofcounsel), for appellant.
Mary E. Rain, District Attorney, Canton (A. Michael Gebo of counsel), forrespondent.
McCarthy, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County(Richards, J.), rendered September 8, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guiltyof the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
During a home visit, defendant's parole officer allegedly found crack cocaine, heroinand other drugs and packaging materials in defendant's apartment and he was thereaftercharged by indictment with six drug-related felonies and a misdemeanor. Pursuant to aplea agreement that included an appeal waiver, defendant entered a guilty plea undercount 2 of the indictment to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the thirddegree, admitting that he had possessed morphine with intent to sell it. Consistent withthat agreement, he was sentenced, as an admitted second felony drug offender with aprior violent felony, to a prison term of 11 years with three years of postreleasesupervision. Defendant now appeals.
Defendant's waiver of his right to appeal is valid. At the time of the waiver,defendant was 32 years old and had a criminal history that stretched back more than 12years and that included a conviction for a violent felony (see generally People v Sanders,25 NY3d 337, 341-342 [2015]). During the colloquy with defendant, County Courtelicited defendant's assurance that he understood that the "right to appeal is separate anddistinct from those rights . . . automatically forfeited by [the] plea of guilty."Defendant also assured the court that he understood that such a waiver would not affecthis right to appeal on a number of grounds that the court had listed for him. Moregenerally, defendant agreed that he understood the difference between those rights thathe was giving up and those rights that he would retain in regard to a waiver of the rightto appeal. This colloquy was sufficient to demonstrate that defendant knowingly,intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal (see People v Sanders, 25[*2]NY3d at 341-342 [2015]; People v Handly, 122 AD3d1007, 1008 [2014]; Peoplev Lyman, 119 AD3d 968, 969 [2014]; People v Wolz, 112 AD3d 1150, 1151-1152 [2013], lvdenied 23 NY3d 1026 [2014]). That valid waiver forecloses review of defendant'scontention that his sentence is harsh and excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255-256 [2006]).
Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.