| People v Bateman |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 05280 [151 AD3d 1482] |
| June 29, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph A.Bateman, Appellant. |
Susan Patnode, Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Kelly L. Egan of counsel), forappellant.
Mary E. Rain, District Attorney, Canton (Matthew L. Peabody of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.), renderedNovember 16, 2015, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of unlawfulmanufacture of methamphetamine in the third degree.
Defendant waived indictment and pleaded guilty to unlawful manufacture ofmethamphetamine in the third degree as charged in a superior court information, and waived hisright to appeal. The plea agreement, which also satisfied another pending charge, provided thatdefendant would receive a prison term of three years with two years of postrelease supervisionsubject to certain conditions, including that he "comply with the jail rules." County Courtspecifically warned defendant that breaking the jail rules could result in an enhanced sentence offour years in prison. When defendant appeared for sentencing, the court advised the parties that ithad received documents from the jail regarding defendant's violation of jail rules, includingpossession of contraband and testing positive for opiates, which defendant did not dispute. Thecourt determined that defendant had violated the conditions of his plea agreement and that it wasno longer bound to the promised sentence, and imposed a prison term of four years with twoyears of postrelease supervision, as an admitted second drug felony offender. Defendant nowappeals.
We affirm. Defendant's claim that the sentence is harsh and excessive is precluded by hisvalid combined oral and written appeal waiver (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Hall, 147 AD3d 1151,1151-1152 [2017]). Defendant was advised that an appeal waiver was a condition of the pleaagreement, and County Court provided a detailed explanation [*2]of the rights that were not waived, ascertained that defendantunderstood the waiver and conveyed that it was separate and distinct from the trial-related rightsautomatically forfeited by his guilty plea. Defendant then executed a written waiver of appeal,indicating that he had read and understood it and had no questions (see People v Lopez, 6NY3d at 256; People v Khan, 139AD3d 1261, 1262 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 932 [2016]). As defendant's "fullappreciation of the consequences and understanding of the terms and conditions of the plea,including a waiver of the right to appeal, are apparent on the face of the record" (People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337,340 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]), we find that his waiver of appealwas made "knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily" (People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 256).Further, the court informed defendant of the specific conditions that he had to abide by or riskenhancement of his sentence, and defendant and counsel were afforded an opportunity to contestthe violations and did not dispute that defendant had received adequate warnings and hadviolated the conditions. Accordingly, an enhanced sentence was authorized and did not constitutean abuse of discretion (see People vAlbergotti, 17 NY3d 748, 750 [2011]; People v Lester, 141 AD3d 951, 953-954 [2016], lv denied28 NY3d 1185 [2017]). Given that the court advised him of the consequences of violating theconditions of his plea, defendant's challenge to the enhanced sentence as harsh and excessive isprecluded by his valid appeal waiver (see People v Gilbert, 145 AD3d 1196, 1197 [2016], lvdenied 28 NY3d 1184 [2017]; People v Lester, 141 AD3d at 954).
McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Lynch, Rose and Mulvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.