| People v Larose |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 02678 [160 AD3d 1215] |
| April 19, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Anthony A. Larose II, Appellant. |
Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Kelly L. Egan of counsel), for appellant.
Gary M. Pasqua, District Attorney, Canton (Matthew L. Peabody of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Champagne, J.),rendered July 7, 2016, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of unlawfulmanufacture of methamphetamine in the third degree and driving while ability impaired.
Defendant waived indictment and agreed to be prosecuted by a superior court informationcharging him with unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine in the third degree and drivingwith ability impaired. A plea agreement was reached pursuant to which defendant pleaded guiltyto the charged crimes and waived his right to appeal, both orally and in writing. In accordancewith the plea agreement, he was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate prisonterm of four years followed by two years of postrelease supervision, to be executed as a sentenceof parole supervision thereby allowing for his participation in a drug treatment program(see CPL 410.91). Defendant appeals.
We are unpersuaded by defendant's contention that his waiver of the right to appeal isinvalid. The record reflects that County Court explained to defendant that the waiver of the rightto appeal was separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited by the guilty plea, anddefendant acknowledged that he understood the nature of the waiver (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248,256 [2006]; People v Dobbs, 157AD3d 1122, 1122 [2018]). Defendant also signed a detailed written waiver in open courtthat outlined his rights and the consequences of the waiver, including the fact that he waswaiving his right to argue, among other things, that the sentence is harsh or excessive (see People v Peterkin, 156 AD3d962, 963 [2017]; People vCuchelo, 155 AD3d 1189, 1190 [2017]). We are unpersuaded by defendant's contentionthat County Court [*2]erred by not explaining the waiver ofappeal until after defendant admitted his guilt to the charges. The plea minutes demonstrate thatdefendant was fully aware at the time that he admitted his guilt that an appeal waiver was acondition of the plea agreement and the court did not accept the plea until after the waiver wasfully explained and he executed the written waiver. In light of defendant's valid appeal waiver,his contention that the agreed-upon sentence is harsh and excessive is precluded (see People v Dutcher, 156 AD3d1122, 1122 [2017]; People vBrothers, 155 AD3d 1257, 1258 [2017]).
Garry, P.J., McCarthy, Lynch, Devine and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.