| People v Wickwire |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 07494 [166 AD3d 1170] |
| November 8, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Chad S. Wickwire, Appellant. |
Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Kristin A. Bluvas of counsel), forappellant.
Gary M. Pasqua, District Attorney, Canton (Matthew L. Peabody of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.),rendered February 17, 2016, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofcriminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.
Defendant waived indictment and agreed to plead guilty to a superior courtinformation charging him with one count of criminal possession of a controlledsubstance in the fifth degree. The plea agreement, which covered other pending chargesand included—insofar as is relevant here—a waiver of the right to appeal,contemplated that defendant would receive a sentence of five years of probation uponsuccessfully completing substance abuse treatment. Following his guilty plea, defendantwas remanded pending his entry into treatment—with the admonition that CountyCourt would not be bound by its sentencing commitment if he failed to completetreatment, tested positive, failed to comply with the local jail rules or failed to report tohis probation officer.
Defendant thereafter entered treatment and successfully completed the inpatientportion of the program. Upon his referral to a halfway house, however, defendant testedpositive for Suboxone and was returned to County Court on a bench warrant. CountyCourt thereafter sentenced defendant, as an admitted second felony drug offender, to aprison term of four years followed by two years of postrelease supervision at the Willarddrug treatment program. Defendant appeals.
Contrary to defendant's assertion, we find his waiver of the right to appeal to bevalid. County Court explained that the waiver of the right to appeal was separate anddistinct from the other rights that defendant was forfeiting by pleading guilty, anddefendant indicated his understanding thereof (see People v Rogers, 162 AD3d 1410, 1410 [2018]; People v Edwards, 160 AD3d1280, 1281 [2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1147 [2018]; People v Quinones, 160 AD3d1304, 1305 [2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1152 [2018]). In response to CountyCourt's inquiries, [*2]defendant confirmed that he hadread the written waiver that he had executed, understood its contents, had no questionsrelative thereto, had been afforded sufficient opportunity to confer with counsel and waswilling to waive his right to appeal (see People v Gilliam, 162 AD3d 1413, 1414 [2018]; People v Venable, 161 AD3d1315, 1315 [2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1154 [2018]; People v Sharpe, 159 AD3d1192, 1193 [2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1121 [2018]). In light of the validappeal waiver, defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentence imposed is precluded(see People v Garcia, 164AD3d 958, 959 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1003 [2018]; People vQuinones, 160 AD3d at 1305).
McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Devine, Aarons and Rumsey, JJ., concur. Ordered that thejudgment is affirmed.