| People v Bridge |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 07492 [166 AD3d 1168] |
| November 8, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Charles Bridge, Appellant. |
Aaron A. Louridas, Delmar, for appellant.
D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.),rendered March 10, 2017, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofdriving while intoxicated.
In satisfaction of a two-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to driving whileintoxicated and executed a waiver of his right to appeal in open court. County Courtsentenced him, in accordance with the plea agreement, to 1 to 3 years in prison.Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. We are not persuaded by defendant's contention that his waiver of theright to appeal is invalid. The record reflects that County Court adequately explained todefendant that the waiver of the right to appeal was "separate and distinct" from thetrial-related rights automatically forfeited by his guilty plea, and defendant acknowledgedthat he understood the nature of the waiver of appeal (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264 [2011]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d248, 256 [2006]; People vNieves, 163 AD3d 1359, 1359 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1006 [2018];People v King, 163 AD3d1352, 1352 [2018]). In addition, defendant executed in open court a detailed writtenwaiver of appeal, which included any challenge to the fairness of the sentence, and thecourt confirmed that defendant had an opportunity to discuss the consequences of thewaiver with his attorney and that defendant had no further questions about the waiver ofappeal (see People v Nieves, 163 AD3d at 1359; People v Hess, 150 AD3d1560, 1560 [2017]; Peoplev Cuomo, 144 AD3d 1266, 1267 [2016]). Accordingly, the combined oralcolloquy and written waiver of appeal demonstrate that defendant knowingly,intelligently and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence (see People v Chaney, 160AD3d 1281, 1282-1283 [2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1146 [2018]; People v Lavalley, 150 AD3d1339, 1340 [2017]). As the court abided by its sentencing commitment, defendant'svalid waiver of appeal precludes his claim that the sentence was harsh and excessive (see People v Cuchelo, 155AD3d 1189, 1190 [2017]; People v Cuomo, 144 AD3d at1267).
[*2] Finally, under the circumstancesof this case, including that defendant had already been granted a request for anadjournment of sentencing and received the negotiated sentence, we conclude thatCounty Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request of defendant's newattorney for an adjournment to permit further preparation for sentencing (cf. People v Stickey, 114AD3d 532, 532 [2014], lv denied 22 NY3d 1203 [2014]; People v Orminski, 108 AD3d864, 865-866 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 958 [2013]). Moreover, both theattorney and defendant addressed the court at sentencing, and there is no reason tobelieve that counsel—who was sufficiently familiar with the case, madeappropriate arguments at sentencing and had an opportunity to review the presentenceinvestigation report prior to sentencing—could have persuaded the court to imposea more lenient sentence if he had received more time to prepare (see People v Lasso, 115 AD3d563, 564 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1039 [2014]; People v Jannestil, 105 AD3d560, 561 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1041 [2013]).
Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Ordered that thejudgment is affirmed.