| People v Quinones |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 02842 [160 AD3d 1304] |
| April 26, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ruben J. Quinones, Appellant. |
Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Kelly L. Egan of counsel), for appellant.
Gary M. Pasqua, District Attorney, Canton (Matthew J. Peabody of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richey, J.), renderedAugust 18, 2016, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of grand larceny inthe fourth degree, criminal trespass in the second degree and identity theft in the thirddegree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminal trespass in thesecond degree and identity theft in the third degree as charged in an indictment and waived hisright to appeal. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, defendant was placed on interimprobation and, if successful, would be permitted to withdraw his plea and enter a plea to amisdemeanor with a period of probation to be imposed at sentencing. Thereafter, defendant failedto comply with the terms of the interim probation and County Court sentenced him to anaggregate prison term of 1 to 3 years. Defendant appeals.
We are unpersuaded by defendant's contention that the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid(see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d337, 340-342 [2015]; People vLopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). The record reflects that County Court (Richards, J.)informed defendant of the separate and distinct nature of the right to appeal and that defendantacknowledged that he understood and was voluntarily relinquishing those rights. Defendant thenexecuted in open court a written waiver after reading and discussing it with counsel, andconfirmed that he understood it. In view of the foregoing, the record demonstrates that defendantknowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Weir, 155 AD3d1190, 1191 [2017]; People vTulip, 150 AD3d 1564, 1565 [2017]). As such, defendant's challenge to the severity ofthe sentence is precluded (see People vUpshur, 150 AD3d 1552, 1553 [2017]; People v Fifield, 149 AD3d [*2]1420, 1421 [2017]).
Garry, P.J., McCarthy, Mulvey, Aarons and Rumsey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgmentis affirmed.