| People v Hammond |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 05096 [186 AD3d 1836] |
| September 24, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v John F. Hammond II, Appellant. |
Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Keith F. Schockmel of counsel), forappellant.
Jason M. Carusone, District Attorney, Lake George (Robert P. McCarty of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County (Hall Jr., J.), rendered June29, 2018, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.
In satisfaction of a two-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to assault in the seconddegree and was sentenced to six months in jail and five years of probation. Defendant thereafteradmitted that he violated the terms of his probation by, among other things, testing positive forthe presence of THC, and County Court adjourned the matter to afford defendant an opportunityto demonstrate his ability to comply with the terms and conditions thereof. In conjunction withthat admission, defendant was required to waive his right to appeal.
During the pending adjournment, defendant again violated the terms of his probation innumerous respects, including testing positive for the use of marihuana. Ultimately, defendantagreed to make certain admissions with the understanding that he would be sentenced to a prisonterm of three years followed by three years of postrelease supervision. As part of that agreement,defendant again was required to waive his right to appeal. County Court imposed thecontemplated prison term, and this appeal ensued.
We affirm. Although County Court's waiver colloquy "arguably could have been moreexpansive," the court nonetheless advised defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal was acondition of the proposed agreement, explained the separate and distinct nature of the right toappeal and confirmed that defendant was willing to relinquish that right in exchange for thefavorable offer extended to him (Peoplev Charles, 163 AD3d 1362, 1362 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1063 [2018]).Additionally, defendant executed a written waiver in open court after conferring with counsel andindicated that he understood the ramifications thereof (see People v King, 184 AD3d 909, 910 [2020]; People v Bayne, 175 AD3d 1722,1723 [2019]). Accordingly, and as we otherwise discern no infirmities in the waiver (compare People v Barrales, 179 AD3d1313, 1314-1315 [2020]), we find that the appeal waiver was valid (see People v Williams, 185 AD3d1352, 1353 [2020]) and precludes defendant's challenge to the severity of the agreed-uponsentence (see People v King, 184 AD3d at 910; People v Chapman, 168 AD3d 1315, 1316 [2019], lvdenied 33 NY3d 1067 [2019]).
Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Mulvey, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Colangelo, JJ., concur. Ordered thatthe judgment is affirmed.