| People v Tietje |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 02925 [171 AD3d 1355] |
| April 18, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Gregory P. Tietje, Appellant. |
Dennis J. Lamb, Troy, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
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.), renderedFebruary 24, 2017, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of driving whileintoxicated.
In full satisfaction of a four-count indictment, defendant agreed to plead guilty to one countof driving while intoxicated and executed a waiver of the right to appeal. Thereafter, CountyCourt sentenced defendant, in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, to a prison termof 2 to 6 years, with the sentence to run consecutively to any previously imposed sentences.Defendant appealed, and this Court rejected his counsel's Anders brief, withheld decisionand assigned new counsel to represent defendant on appeal (166 AD3d 1079, 1079-1080 [2018]).We now affirm.
Initially, defendant contends that his appeal waiver is invalid and does not preclude hischallenge to the severity of the sentence. We agree with defendant that County Court's questionregarding whether defendant understood that he was giving up all of his appellate rights whenpleading guilty was misleading because it implied "that the right to appeal is automaticallyextinguished upon entry of a guilty plea" (People v Moyett, 7 NY3d 892, 893 [2006]; see People vBillingslea, 6 NY3d 248, 257 [2006]; People v Odom, 164 AD3d 1475, 1475 [2018], lv denied 32NY3d 1176 [2019]). Nevertheless, the court's plea colloquy, together with the detailed writtenwaiver of the right to appeal that explained, among other things, the appellate process anddefendant's right to appeal, adequately apprised defendant that the right to appeal is separate anddistinct from the trial-related rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737,738 [2006]; People v Weinstock,129 AD3d 1663, 1663 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1012 [2015]; People v Williams, 49 AD3d 1281,1282 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 940 [2008]). In addition, County Court confirmed thatdefense counsel had discussed the waiver of appeal with defendant and that defendant had nofurther questions regarding the written appeal waiver prior to signing it in open court (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d257, 264-265 [2011]; People vWilliams, 167 AD3d 1084, 1085 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1211 [2019]; People v McClain, 165 AD3d1345, 1345-1346 [2018]; People vJackson, 129 AD3d 1342, 1342 [2015]). Accordingly, defendant's argument that hissentence is harsh and excessive is precluded by his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248,256 [2006]; People v Freeman, 169AD3d 1115, 1116 [2019]; People vWatkins, 166 AD3d 1239, 1240 [2018]).
Finally, defendant's contentions raised in his supplemental brief regarding the adequacy ofthe medical care that he has received while confined concern matters that are outside of therecord before us and are more properly addressed through "the grievance process, a CPLR article78 proceeding or an action in the nature of mandamus" (Blake v State of New York, 145 AD3d 1336, 1337 [2016], lvdenied 29 NY3d 908 [2017]).
Lynch, J.P., Clark, Aarons, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.