| People v Peterkin |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 08558 [156 AD3d 962] |
| December 7, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Joseph A. Peterkin, Appellant. |
Susan Patnode, Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Kristin A. Bluvas 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.), renderedFebruary 19, 2016, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attemptedcriminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
In full satisfaction of a four-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted criminalsale of a controlled substance in the third degree and executed a waiver of appeal. Consistentwith the plea agreement, County Court imposed a one-year term of interim probation supervisionand ordered defendant to comply with the terms and conditions thereof, warning him that, if heviolated the conditions, he faced up to eight years in prison and five years of postreleasesupervision. In August 2014, following a hearing, County Court found that defendant hadviolated the terms of interim probation and resentenced him to an additional year of interimprobation. In March 2015, defendant was indicted on various drug charges and ultimatelyconvicted of six felonies in January 2016. As a result, County Court found that defendant hadagain failed to comply with the conditions of his interim probation and sentenced him, as asecond felony drug offender, to a five-year prison term to be followed by three years ofpostrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Contrary to defendant's contention, we find that his combined oral and writtenwaiver of the right to appeal was knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d337, 341 [2015]; People vLopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). The plea minutes demonstrate that defendant wasadvised that an appeal waiver was a condition of the plea and that he understood and voluntarilyagreed to this condition, and County Court made [*2]clear thatthe waiver of appeal was separate and distinct from the trial-related rights that he automaticallyforfeited by his guilty plea (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 256; People v Belile, 137 AD3d 1460,1461 [2016]). Defendant then signed a detailed written waiver in open court that outlined hisrights and the consequences of the waiver, that specifically waived his right to challenge theseverity of the sentence and that indicated that defendant had discussed the waiver with counseland understood it. Accordingly, defendant's valid appeal waiver precludes his challenge to thesentence as harsh and excessive given that he was informed of the sentence that could beimposed if he did not successfully complete the term of interim probation (see People v Tulip, 150 AD3d1564, 1565-1566 [2017]; People vSaucier, 69 AD3d 1125, 1126 [2010]).
Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Rose, Devine and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.