| People v Sahler |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 00639 [168 AD3d 1313] |
| January 31, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Matthew Sahler, Appellant. |
Andrew Kossover, Public Defender, Kingston (Michael K. Gould of counsel), forappellant.
D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered July23, 2015, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of aggravated driving whileintoxicated and driving while intoxicated.
Following an incident that occurred in July 2014, defendant was charged in a three-countindictment with aggravated driving while intoxicated, driving while intoxicated as a felony andaggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree. Three months later,defendant was involved in a motor vehicle accident, as the result of which he subsequentlywaived indictment and agreed to be prosecuted pursuant to a superior court information charginghim with one count of driving while intoxicated as a felony. In full satisfaction of bothinstruments, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated driving while intoxicated (ascharged in the indictment) and one count of driving while intoxicated as a felony (as charged inthe superior court information) with the understanding that he would be sentenced to consecutiveterms of imprisonment of 2
We affirm. Defendant's challenge to the validity of his waiver of the right to appeal isunpersuasive. "[A]lthough the appeal waiver was not mentioned when the terms of the pleaagreement were initially placed on the record, defendant was informed during the plea colloquy,and prior to pleading guilty, that a waiver of the right to appeal was part of the plea bargain" (People v Gilbert, 145 AD3d 1196,1196 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv denied 28 NY3d 1184[2017]). County Court advised defendant that, although he had a "separate and distinct. . . right to appeal anything that . . . happened in this case to a highercourt," he was being asked to waive that right as part of the plea bargain (see People v Franklin, 164 AD3d1547, 1548 [2018]; People vSassenscheid, 162 AD3d 1108, 1108-1109 [2018]). Defendant responded that heunderstood the nature of the waiver and had no questions relative thereto (see People v Wickwire, 166 AD3d1170, 1171 [2018]; People vAldous, 166 AD3d 1077, 1078 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1124 [2018]).Additionally, following a brief adjournment to confer with counsel, defendant stated that he hadno questions on that point and executed a detailed written waiver in open court (see People v Koontz, 166 AD3d1215, 1216 [2018]; People vWilliams, 163 AD3d 1172, 1172-1173 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1009 [2018]).We are satisfied from the foregoing that defendant's combined oral and written waiver of theright to appeal was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Daniels, 167 AD3d 1087, 1088 [2018]; People v Watkins, 166 AD3d1239, 1240 [2018]). Accordingly, defendant's challenge to the perceived severity of hissentence is precluded (see People vCherry, 166 AD3d 1220, 1221 [2018]).
Egan Jr., J.P., Clark, Devine, Aarons and Rumsey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.