| People v Slamp |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 08564 [145 AD3d 1320] |
| December 22, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vBenjamin A. Slamp, Appellant. |
Norbert A. Higgins, Binghamton, for appellant.
Mark D. Suben, District Attorney, Cortland (Zela E. Brotherton of counsel), forrespondent.
Mulvey, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Cortland County (Ames,J.), rendered August 13, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimesof unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine in the third degree and criminal sale of acontrolled substance in the fifth degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine in the thirddegree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree in full satisfactionof a six-count indictment, and his plea included the waiver of the right to appeal.Pursuant to the plea agreement, defendant was to be sentenced to an aggregate prisonterm of four years, to be followed by two years of postrelease supervision. Sentencingwas adjourned and defendant was released to get his affairs in order, with therequirement that he was to report to jail one week later. Defendant failed to report to jailand a warrant was issued for his arrest. Defendant was subsequently arrested on a newcharge of criminal contempt in the second degree. Defendant thereafter agreed to besentenced to an aggregate prison term of five years, with two years of postreleasesupervision, on his plea of guilty to unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine in thethird degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, with theunderstanding that the enhanced sentence would satisfy the criminal contempt charge, aswell as any other pending charges. The agreement also included a waiver of the right toappeal. County Court imposed the agreed-upon sentence and defendantappeals.
[*2] We affirm. Initially, we agreewith defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid, inasmuch as the recorddoes not demonstrate that defendant understood that the appeal waiver was separate anddistinct from the rights automatically forfeited by a guilty plea (see People v Bradshaw, 18NY3d 257, 263-264 [2011]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). Althoughdefendant's sole remaining claim—that his sentence was harsh andexcessive—is properly before us, we find it unpersuasive. Defendant was advisedat the time that he entered his plea of the consequences of being arrested while onrelease, and he waived any challenges regarding the enhanced sentence in exchange forthe promise that his plea would satisfy both the new charge and any pending charges(see People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 713 [1993]; People v Lord, 128 AD3d1277, 1278-1279 [2015]). In light of the foregoing, as well as defendant's extensivecriminal history, we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstanceswarranting a reduction of the sentence (see People v Kerwin, 117 AD3d 1097, 1098 [2014]; People v Williams, 101 AD3d1174, 1174-1175 [2012]).
Peters, P.J., Garry, Devine and Aarons, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.