| People v Nieves |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 05535 [163 AD3d 1359] |
| July 26, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Wilfredo Nieves, Appellant. |
G. Scott Walling, Slingerlands, for appellant.
Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Tracey M. Brunecz of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Sypniewski, J.),rendered May 13, 2016, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attemptedcriminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
Defendant was charged by indictment with criminal possession of a weapon in the seconddegree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree after a loaded gunand cocaine were discovered following the execution of a search warrant at an apartment wherehe was present. Defendant thereafter accepted a plea offer that included a waiver of appealpursuant to which he pleaded guilty to the reduced crime of attempted criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree in satisfaction of the indictment. Defendant was sentenced, aspromised, to a prison term of two years with three years of postrelease supervision and nowappeals.
We affirm. Initially, we reject defendant's argument that his appeal waiver was invalid.County Court explained the right to appeal, made clear that a waiver of appeal was a condition ofthe plea agreement that was separate and distinct from the trial-related rights that wereautomatically forfeited by his guilty plea and noted the consequences of the waiver. Defendantsigned a written waiver of appeal, which detailed the scope of the appellate rights that he waswaiving, and confirmed, in response to questioning by County Court, that he had reviewed it withcounsel and understood its contents. Accordingly, we find that defendant's combined oral andwritten waiver of appeal was valid (seePeople v Bryant, 28 NY3d 1094, 1095-1096 [2016]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255-256 [2006]). Defendant'scontention that his sentence is harsh and excessive is barred by his valid appeal waiver (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d337, 339-341 [2015]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 256; People v Savage, 158 AD3d 854,855 [2018]; People v Webb, 157AD3d 1132, 1132 [2018]).
Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Aarons and Rumsey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.