| People v Blackwood |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 01560 [148 AD3d 716] |
| March 1, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Philip Blackwood, Appellant. |
Arza Feldman, Uniondale, NY, for appellant.
Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Hae Jin Liu and Laurie G.Sapakoff of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County(Zambelli, J.), rendered December 1, 2015, convicting him of criminal possession of weapon inthe third degree and obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, upon his pleaof guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the waiver of his right to appeal was valid. Althoughthe Court of Appeals has "repeatedly observed that there is no mandatory litany that must be usedin order to obtain a valid waiver of appellate rights" (People v Johnson, 14 NY3d 483, 486 [2010]), the record mustdemonstrate that the defendant "intentionally relinquish[ed] or abandon[ed] a known right thatwould otherwise survive a guilty plea" (People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227, 230 n 1 [2000];see People v Johnson, 14 NY3d at 486). "The best way to ensure that the record reflectsthat the right is known and intentionally relinquished by the defendant is to fully explain to thedefendant, on the record, the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving it" (People v Brown, 122 AD3d 133,142 [2014]).
Here, the record of the plea proceeding demonstrates that the defendant received anexplanation of the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving that right(see People v Brown, 122 AD3d at 144). Contrary to the defendant's contention, therecord adequately demonstrates that the defendant understood the distinction between the right toappeal and the trial rights automatically forfeited incident to a plea of guilty (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d337, 341 [2015]). On the record presented, the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, andintelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Stiles, 143 AD3d 747 [2016]; People v Romero-Flores, 128 AD3d1102, 1102 [2015]; People vMcRae, 123 AD3d 848, 848 [2014]). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appealprecludes appellate review of his contention that the County Court improvidently exercised itsdiscretion in denying his application for a second adjournment prior to sentencing (see People v Murphy, 114 AD3d704, 705-706 [2014]; People vWatt, 82 AD3d 912, 912 [2011]; see also People v Spears, 64 NY2d 698,699-700 [1984]; cf. La Rocca v Lane, 47 AD2d 243, 245-246 [1975], affd 37NY2d 575 [1975]). Mastro, J.P., Austin, Miller and Maltese, JJ., concur.