| People v Haggray |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 04235 [172 AD3d 1825] |
| May 30, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Trevaughn Haggray, Appellant. |
Salvatore Adamo, Albany, for appellant.
Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H. Willis of counsel), forrespondent.
Mulvey, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County(Sypniewski, J.), rendered December 8, 2016, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of thecrime of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree in fullsatisfaction of a 10-count indictment and waived the right to appeal. Prior to sentencing,defendant made an oral motion to withdraw his plea citing ineffective assistance of counsel.County Court denied the motion and sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea agreementto nine years in prison, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendantappeals.
We affirm. Initially, we reject defendant's contention that his waiver of the right to appealwas invalid. The record reflects that County Court advised defendant that an appeal waiver was acondition of the plea agreement and adequately explained the separate and distinct nature of theright to appeal. Defendant also signed a written waiver in open court after discussing it withcounsel, and he assured County Court that he understood its ramifications. Under thesecircumstances, we conclude that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived theright to appeal (see People v Bridge,166 AD3d 1168, 1168-1169 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1124 [2018]; People v Garcia, 164 AD3d 958,958-959 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1003 [2018]). As such, defendant's contention thatthe sentence is harsh and excessive is precluded (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]; People v Watkins, 166 AD3d1239, 1240 [2018], lv denied 33 NY3d 955 [2019]).
Defendant also claims that his counsel was ineffective. "In the context of a guilty plea, adefendant has been afforded meaningful representation when he or she receives an advantageousplea and nothing in the record casts doubt upon the apparent effectiveness of counsel" (People v Beekman, 134 AD3d1355, 1356-1357 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied27 NY3d 992 [2016]; see People vGriffin, 165 AD3d 1316, 1318 [2018]). Here, the record reflects that counsel pursuedappropriate pretrial motions and negotiated an advantageous plea on defendant's behalf thatreduced his sentencing exposure. Further, nothing in the record casts doubt upon counsel'seffectiveness. Under these circumstances, we find that defendant received meaningfulrepresentation (see People v Beekman, 134 AD3d at 1357; People v Cavallaro, 123 AD3d1221, 1223 [2014]; People vWren, 119 AD3d 1291, 1292 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1048 [2014]).
Egan Jr., J.P., Devine, Aarons and Rumsey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.