| People v Adams |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 06829 [165 AD3d 1343] |
| October 11, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Nicholas P. Adams, Appellant. |
Rebecca L. Fox, Plattsburgh, for appellant.
Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General, New York City (Lisa E. Fleischmann of counsel),for respondent.
Clark, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.),rendered November 19, 2015, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofburglary in the second degree.
In March 2015, a grand jury handed up four sealed indictments in connection with an allegedconspiracy to distribute heroin and cocaine in St. Lawrence County. Defendant, who was namedin two of the indictments, was charged with, among other crimes, burglary in the second degreeand various drug and weapon offenses. In full satisfaction of the subsequently consolidatedindictments and additional pending charges, defendant agreed to plead guilty to one count ofburglary in the second degree in exchange for a prison term of nine years followed by five yearsof postrelease supervision. The plea agreement required defendant to waive his right to appeal,and County Court's sentencing commitment was contingent upon defendant obeying theapplicable "jail rules" while confined awaiting sentencing. Consistent with that agreement,defendant thereafter pleaded guilty to one count of burglary in the second degree and wasremanded pending sentencing. In this regard, County Court reminded defendant that he wasrequired to comply with the local jail rules, stating, "You break the jail rules—get in afight, possess a controlled substance, test positive, whatever the rule is—I'm not bound tosentence you to the agreed[-]upon sentence of nine years." Defendant indicated that heunderstood, and the matter was adjourned.
When defendant appeared for sentencing, County Court stated that it had been apprised thatdefendant allegedly had violated a facility rule and, after some discussion, the matter wasadjourned for a violation hearing. Ultimately, defendant elected to forgo both the violationhearing and his requested restitution hearing in exchange for County Court's agreement to imposea prison term of 10 years, followed by five years of postrelease supervision. At sentencing,defendant expressed his belief that a prison term of 10 years was harsh and excessive and [*2]indicated that he would not have accepted the plea offer had heunderstood the impact of the requirement that he not violate any local jail rules; that said,defendant made clear that he did not wish to withdraw his plea. County Court thereaftersentenced defendant to a prison term of 10 years followed by five years of postreleasesupervision, and this appeal ensued.
We affirm. Contrary to defendant's assertion, County Court explained that the waiver ofappeal was part of the plea agreement and that such waiver was separate and distinct from thetrial-related rights that defendant was automatically forfeiting by pleading guilty. In addition toorally confirming his understanding of the waiver, defendant reviewed and executed a detailedwritten waiver in open court—advising County Court that he had read the written waiver,understood the contents thereof, had been afforded an opportunity to confer with counsel and hadno questions with respect thereto. Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that defendantknowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal (see People v Charles, 163 AD3d1362, 1362 [2018]; People vNieves, 163 AD3d 1359, 1359-1360 [2018]; People v Venable, 161 AD3d 1315, 1315 [2018], lv denied31 NY3d 1154 [2018]).
Defendant next contends that County Court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence withoutundertaking a sufficient inquiry into defendant's alleged violation of the terms of the pleaagreement—namely, that he not violate any jail rules while confined awaiting sentencing.This issue, however, is unpreserved for our review, as defendant elected to forgo a violationhearing (see People v Adams, 153AD3d 1449, 1451 [2017]) and thereafter stated that he did not wish to withdraw his pleaupon this ground (see People vSmith, 162 AD3d 1408, 1409 [2018]). Were we to address this issue, we would find itto be lacking in merit, as defendant readily admitted that he violated a direct order whileconfined. Finally, given that "County Court advised defendant of the plea conditions and thepotential consequences of violating them, his contention that [the] enhanced sentence was harshand excessive is precluded by his valid waiver of the right to appeal" (People v Lyman, 119 AD3d 968,970 [2014], lv denied 27 NY3d 1153 [2016]; see People v Perkins, 125 AD3d 1045, 1047 [2015]).
Egan Jr., J.P., Mulvey, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.