| People v Mickens |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 05103 [151 AD3d 984] |
| June 21, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Joseph D. Mickens, Appellant. |
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Alfred J. Cicale of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Marcia R. Kucera of counsel), forrespondent.Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the County Court,Suffolk County (Cohen, J.), imposed March 9, 2016, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground thatthe sentence was excessive.
Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.
At the plea proceeding, the County Court clearly advised the defendant that its sentencingpromise was conditional, and that it would be free to impose an enhanced sentence in the eventthat the defendant violated one or more of the conditions. The court carefully delineated each ofthose conditions. Additionally, the court advised the defendant of the maximum sentence thatcould be imposed in the event the defendant violated a condition. Also at the plea proceeding, thedefendant waived his right to appeal after the court thoroughly explained the nature and extent ofthe right to appeal, and the consequences of waiving it. The defendant nonetheless concededlyviolated one of the conditions of the court's sentencing promise, and the court imposed a sentenceslightly higher than it had originally promised. On appeal, the defendant does not contend thatthe waiver was invalid or that he did not violate a condition, but seeks only to invoke this Court'sinterest of justice jurisdiction to reduce the enhanced sentence.
The defendant's general appeal waiver bars review of his request that his sentence be reducedin the interest of justice (see People vThompson, 148 AD3d 1187, 1187 [2017]; People v Perez, 140 AD3d 799, 800 [2016]; People v Frazier, 127 AD3d 1229,1230 [2015]; People v Arrington, 94AD3d 903, 903 [2012]). Balkin, J.P., Hall, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.