| People v Page |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 03032 [138 AD3d 1313] |
| April 21, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Billy Joe Page, Appellant. |
Kelly L. Egan, Rensselaer, for appellant.
Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Jaime A. Douthat of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lawliss, J.), entered December 9,2013 in Clinton County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofpredatory sexual assault against a child.
Defendant was charged in a 10-count indictment with various crimes as a result ofhis inappropriate sexual contact with the eight-year-old victim. In satisfaction thereof, hepleaded guilty to predatory sexual assault against a child and waived his right to appealboth orally and in writing. In accordance with the plea agreement, he was sentenced to 20years to life in prison and was ordered to pay the mandatory surcharge and other fees, aswell as restitution. Defendant now appeals.
Contrary to defendant's initial contention, his waiver of the right to appeal was valid.Supreme Court explained the right to appeal to defendant, who acknowledgedunderstanding that he would be expected to waive it. Defendant was then provided witha detailed written waiver advising him that he had the right to appeal from the convictionand sentence "result[ing] from this plea," but was expected to give it up as a componentof the plea agreement and confirmed that he was doing so after discussing the matterwith defense counsel. Defendant executed that written waiver after assuring SupremeCourt on the record that he had reviewed it "word for word" with defense counsel, fullyunderstood it and had no questions about it. The record, therefore, confirms thatdefendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d737, 738 [2006]; People vLopez, 6 NY3d 248, 257 [2006]; People v Griffin, 134 AD3d 1228, 1229 [2015]).
Defendant's challenge to the severity of his sentence is precluded by his valid appealwaiver (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 256; People v Griffin, 134 AD3dat 1231). His remaining argument, that Supreme Court erred in failing to defer paymentof the mandatory surcharge and fees, is unpreserved due to his failure to request thatrelief before Supreme Court (seePeople v Jackson, 129 AD3d 1342, 1342 [2015]; People vAbdus-Samad, 274 AD2d 666, 666-667 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 862[2000]).
Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Rose and Devine, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.