| People v McArthur |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 03356 [149 AD3d 1568] |
| April 28, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Philip B.McArthur, Appellant. |
Davison Law Office PLLC, Canandaigua (Mary P. Davison of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.
Brooks T. Baker, District Attorney, Bath (John C. Tunney of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Joseph W. Latham, J.), renderedMarch 18, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal mischiefin the third degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty,of criminal mischief in the third degree (Penal Law § 145.05 [2]). Defendant'schallenge to the severity of his sentence is encompassed by his valid waiver of the right toappeal. Although no mention was made on the record during the plea colloquy that defendantwas waiving his right to appeal any issue concerning the severity of the sentence (see People v Peterson, 111 AD3d1412, 1412 [2013]), here the oral waiver was accompanied by a written plea agreement thatprovided that defendant was waiving his right to appeal his "conviction, sentence, and anyproceedings that may result from this prosecution." Moreover, County Court conducted anextensive inquiry that established that defendant had reviewed and understood the written pleaagreement, including its waiver-of-appeal provision, had discussed it with his lawyer, and hadagreed to its terms, and defendant signed the document in open court during the course of theplea colloquy (see People v Bryant,28 NY3d 1094, 1096 [2016];People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; cf. People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264-267 [2011]). Therefore,defendant may not challenge the severity of the sentence. Present—Smith, J.P., Carni,DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Troutman, JJ.