| People v Tulip |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 04178 [150 AD3d 1564] |
| May 25, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John C.Tulip, Appellant. |
Susan Patnode, Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Cynthia Feathers of counsel), forappellant.
Mary E. Rain, District Attorney, Canton (Matthew L. Peabody of counsel), forrespondent.
Mulvey, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards,J.), rendered February 26, 2016, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofattempted burglary in the second degree (two counts).
Defendant waived indictment and pleaded guilty to two counts of the reduced charge ofattempted burglary in the second degree pursuant to a plea agreement that included a waiver ofappeal. County Court imposed concurrent one-year terms of interim probation supervision andordered defendant to comply with the terms and conditions thereof, warning him that, if heviolated the conditions, he faced up to seven years on each count with three years of postreleasesupervision. Months later, the Probation Department submitted notification that defendant hadviolated interim probation by being arrested on burglary and robbery charges. Defendant did notcontest that he had violated the conditions of probation and consented to make restitution and, inexchange, the court agreed that the sentence to be imposed following his probation violationwould also satisfy the new charges as well as three uncharged burglaries. The court thereafterfound that defendant had failed to comply with the conditions of his interim probation andsentenced him to two consecutive six-year prison terms followed by three years of postreleasesupervision, and ordered him to pay restitution. Defendant appeals.
We affirm. Contrary to defendant's claim, the record reflects that his combined oral and [*2]written waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, voluntary andintelligent (see People v Sanders, 25NY3d 337, 339-341 [2015]; Peoplev Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Toledo, 144 AD3d 1332, 1332-1333 [2016], lvdenied — NY3d — [Apr. 6, 2017]). The plea minutes demonstrate thatdefendant was advised that an appeal waiver was a condition of the plea, he indicated that heunderstood and voluntarily agreed to this condition, and County Court made clear that the waiverof appeal was separate and distinct from the trial-related rights that he automatically forfeited byhis guilty plea (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 256; People v Belile, 137 AD3d 1460, 1461 [2016]). Defendant thensigned a detailed written waiver in open court that outlined his rights and the consequences of thewaiver and specifically waived his right to challenge the severity of the sentence, indicating tothe court that he had read it, had a chance to discuss it with counsel and understood it. Asdefendant's understanding of the waiver is established on the record, his sole contention onappeal, that the sentence is unduly harsh, is precluded (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at255-256; People v Mann, 140 AD3d1532, 1533 [2016]; cf. People vBradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 266-267 [2011]).
Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Egan Jr. and Devine, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.