| People v Wright |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 03223 [149 AD3d 1417] |
| April 27, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donald E.Wright, Appellant. |
Robert A. Gouldin, Oneonta, for appellant.
John M. Muehl, District Attorney, Cooperstown (Michael F. Getman of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Otsego County (Lambert, J.), renderedFebruary 24, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of rape in the thirddegree (three counts).
Defendant waived indictment and pleaded guilty to three counts of rape in the third degree ascharged in a superior court information. As part of the plea allocution, defendant admitted that hesubjected a female relative to sexual intercourse on three occasions when she was under the ageof 17. Consistent with the plea agreement, which included a waiver of appeal and satisfied othercharged conduct against the victim, County Court imposed an aggregate prison sentence of 10years with 10 years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
A review of the proceedings discloses that the requirements for a valid waiver of the right toappeal were not met here (see People vBradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264 [2011]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Slamp, 145 AD3d 1320,1321 [2016]; People v Darrell, 145AD3d 1316, 1317 [2016]). Further, while defendant signed a written waiver in court, therecord does not reflect that he read it, discussed it with counsel or understood it, and it is not inthe record on appeal (see People vLarock, 139 AD3d 1241, 1242 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 932 [2016]).Accordingly, as the record does not establish that defendant appreciated the consequences of theappeal waiver, it is invalid and he is not precluded from challenging the severity of his sentence(see People v Elmer, 19 NY3d501, 510 [2012]; People vWoods, 147 AD3d 1156, 1156 [2017]).
[*2] Nonetheless, we are not persuaded by defendant's sole argument that the agreed-uponsentence is harsh or excessive. In imposing the maximum sentence on two of the rapes and alesser sentence on the third rape, all to be served consecutively (see Penal Law§§ 70.25 [2]; 70.80 [4] [a] [iv]), County Court considered appropriatesentencing factors, including defendant's acceptance of responsibility and limited criminalhistory, and that the plea satisfied other charges related to his abuse of the victim. In view of thedevastating and deplorable nature of defendant's crimes and his protracted exploitation of aposition of trust, we cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion or that extraordinarycircumstances are present to warrant a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice(see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]; [6] [b]).
Peters, P.J., Rose, Devine, Clark and Aarons, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.