| People v Watkins |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 07797 [166 AD3d 1239] |
| November 15, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Lloyd A. Watkins, Appellant. |
Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Kristin A. Bluvas of counsel), forappellant.
Jason M. Carusone, District Attorney, Lake George (Rebecca Nealon of counsel), forrespondent.
Clark, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County (Hall Jr.,J.), rendered November 23, 2016, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of thecrime of sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts).
In satisfaction of two superior court informations and certain other unchargedoffenses, defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree andwaived his right to appeal, orally and in writing. At sentencing, CountyCourt—after considering various letters of support and defendant's cognitivelimitations as set forth by a treating psychologist—denied defendant's request to beadjudicated a youthful offender based upon the seriousness of the charges, the number ofvictims and the fact that defendant was on probation for similar conduct at the time thecrimes were committed. The court thereafter sentenced defendant in accordance with theplea agreement to concurrent prison terms of six years, followed by five years ofpostrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.
We affirm. Contrary to defendant's contention, the plea colloquy establishes that heknowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal. The record reflectsthat County Court repeatedly explained that the waiver of the right to appeal was separateand distinct from the rights that defendant would be forfeiting by pleading guilty, andthat defendant stated more than once that he understood. In addition, defendant reviewedthe written appeal waiver with his counsel, executed it in open court and affirmed that heunderstood its consequences. As we find defendant's appeal waiver to be valid, review ofhis claim that his sentence is harsh and excessive is precluded (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d248, 255 [2006]; People vWilliams, 163 AD3d 1172, 1173 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1009[2018]). Further, because County Court did not abrogate its responsibility to determinewhether to grant defendant youthful offender status, defendant's challenge to the court'sdiscretionary determination to deny him youthful offender status is foreclosed by thevalid appeal waiver (see People v Pacherille, 25 [*2]NY3d 1021, 1023-1024 [2015]; People v Simmons, 159 AD3d1270, 1271 [2018]; Peoplev Hernandez, 140 AD3d 1521, 1523 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 971[2016]).
Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Mulvey and Rumsey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.