People v Gilmour

2018 NY Slip Op 02682 [160 AD3d 1219]

April 19, 2018

Appellate Division, Third Department

As corrected through Wednesday, May 30, 2018

[*1]

The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jason M. Gilmour, Appellant.

Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Cynthia Feathers 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 5, 2016, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in thethird degree.

Defendant was indicted and charged with burglary in the third degree and grand larceny inthe third degree. In full satisfaction of that indictment and other pending charges, defendantagreed to waive his right to appeal and plead guilty to burglary in the third degree in exchange forthe negotiated sentence of 31/2 to 7 years—to be served as a sentence ofparole supervision through the Willard Parole Supervision Program. At the conclusion of the pleacolloquy that followed, defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the third degree and thereafterwas sentenced as a second felony offender in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement.This appeal by defendant ensued.

We affirm. Contrary to defendant's assertion, we find that his waiver of the right to appealwas knowing, intelligent and voluntary. County Court explained that defendant's appellate rightswere separate and distinct from the trial-related rights that he was forfeiting and defendant, inturn, assured the court that he understood the nature of the waiver (see People v Cayon, 158 AD3d946, 947 [2018]; People vFelker, 155 AD3d 1258, 1258 [2017]). Additionally, defendant signed a detailed writtenwaiver, wherein he expressly waived his right to challenge the severity of his sentence andindicated that he had been afforded sufficient time to confer with counsel (see People v Lawrence, 155 AD3d1259, 1260 [2017]; People vUpshur, 150 AD3d 1552, 1553 [2017]); the record further reflects that County Courtconfirmed that defendant had been fully apprised by counsel as to the significance of the waiver(compare [*2]People v Chappelle, 121 AD3d 1166, 1167 [2014], lvdenied 24 NY3d 1118 [2015]). Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that defendant'scombined oral and written waiver of the right to appeal was valid (see People v Hutchison, 151 AD3d1481, 1482 [2017]; People vMahon, 148 AD3d 1303, 1303 [2017]). In light of defendant's valid waiver, hischallenge to the severity of the sentence imposed is precluded (see People v Curry, 158 AD3d898, 899 [2018]; People vBrothers, 155 AD3d 1257, 1258 [2017]).

Garry, P.J., Clark, Mulvey, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.