People v Lago

2019 NY Slip Op 00499 [168 AD3d 1281]

January 24, 2019

Appellate Division, Third Department

As corrected through Wednesday, March 6, 2019

[*1]

The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v James S. Lago, Appellant.

Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Kelly L. Egan of counsel), for appellant.

Gary M. Pasqua, District Attorney, Canton (Matthew L. Peabody of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Champagne, J.),rendered May 16, 2016, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminalpossession of a forged instrument in the second degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degreein satisfaction of a two-count indictment as well as other charged and uncharged crimes. As partof his guilty plea, he waived his right to appeal, both orally and in writing. Thereafter, he wassentenced as a second felony offender to 31/2 to 7 years in prison pursuant to theterms of the plea agreement. Defendant now appeals.

Defendant contends that his appeal waiver is invalid and does not preclude review of hissentence, which he claims is harsh and excessive. We disagree. The record discloses that CountyCourt provided a thorough explanation of the consequences of the appeal waiver, listing specificrights that were unaffected by the waiver, including the right to challenge a speedy trial violation,the legality of the sentence, defendant's competency to stand trial and the voluntariness of thewaiver (see People v Nichols, 155AD3d 1186, 1187 [2017]). The court further advised defendant that the right to appeal wasseparate and distinct from other rights that he was forfeiting by pleading guilty. The court thenpresented defendant with a comprehensive written appeal waiver that he reviewed with hisattorney and signed in open court after confirming that he understood its contents and wasvoluntarily giving up his right to appeal. Under these circumstances, we find that the appealwaiver is valid and forecloses any challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Martinez, 166 AD3d1376, 1377 [2018]; People vCarter, 166 AD3d 1212, 1213 [2018]).

Garry, P.J., Clark, Mulvey, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.