| People v King |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 05530 [163 AD3d 1352] |
| July 26, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Clarance A. King, Also Known as Charles Hall, Also Known as Akbar,Appellant. |
Stephen W. Herrick, Public Defender, Albany (Jessica M. Gorman of counsel), for appellant,and appellant pro se.
P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Noel Mendez of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Ceresia, J.), renderedFebruary 5, 2016, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminalsale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
In satisfaction of a two-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted criminal saleof a controlled substance in the third degree and waived his right to appeal. He was sentenced asa second felony offender, in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, to a prison term of4
We are unpersuaded by defendant's contention that his waiver of the right to appeal isinvalid. County Court explained that the waiver of the right to appeal was separate and distinctfrom the rights forfeited by the guilty plea. Defendant acknowledged that he understood and thathe was voluntarily relinquishing that right. In addition, the court provided defendant with awritten waiver of the right to appeal, which the record reflects defendant reviewed with counseland executed in open court. The oral colloquy, combined with the written waiver, demonstratethat defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d337, 339-341 [2015]; People vEdwards, 160 AD3d 1280, 1281 [2018]). As such, his challenge to the agreed-uponsentence as harsh and excessive is precluded (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Chaney, 160 AD3d 1281,1283 [2018]). We have reviewed defendant's pro se contention that County Court was deprivedof jurisdiction due to the alleged failure to comply with the provisions of CPL 210.10 and find itto be without merit.
McCarthy, J.P., Devine, Clark, Mulvey and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgmentis affirmed.