| People v Lawrence |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 08056 [155 AD3d 1259] |
| November 16, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v David Lawrence, 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.
Rose, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Champagne,J.), rendered May 9, 2016, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attemptedcriminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.
Defendant waived indictment and agreed to be prosecuted pursuant to a superior courtinformation charging him with assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weaponin the third degree. In full satisfaction thereof, and consistent with the terms of the pleaagreement, defendant subsequently pleaded guilty before County Court (Richards, J.) toattempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. The plea agreement requireddefendant to waive his right to appeal and did not include a sentencing commitment. CountyCourt (Champagne, J.) thereafter sentenced defendant to a prison term of 1
Contrary to defendant's assertion, we find that his combined oral and written waiver of theright to appeal was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 340-341 [2015]; People v Howe, 150 AD3d 1321,1322 [2017]). The plea colloquy reflects that County Court (Richards, J.) advised defendant thathis waiver of the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the trial-related rights that he wasforfeiting, and defendant, in turn, indicated that he understood the nature of the waiver. Inaddition, defendant executed a detailed written waiver in open court, wherein he specificallywaived any right to challenge the severity of the sentence imposed, and County Court confirmedthat defendant had read the waiver, understood its contents and had been afforded sufficient timeto discuss the waiver with counsel. Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that defendant'swaiver was valid (see People vTulip, 150 AD3d 1564, 1565 [2017]; People v Howe, 150 AD3d at 1322;People v Bartlett, 148 AD3d [*2]1471, 1471-1472 [2017];People v Hall, 147 AD3d 1151,1151 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1080 [2017]). In light of the valid appeal waiver,defendant's challenge to the severity of his sentence is precluded (see People v Lambert, 151 AD3d1119, 1120 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1092 [2017]; People v Dubois, 150 AD3d 1562,1563 [2017]).
McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Clark and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.