| People v Pribble |
| 2021 NY Slip Op 00459 [190 AD3d 1194] |
| January 28, 2021 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Bryan A. Pribble, Appellant. |
Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Keith F. Shockmel of counsel), forappellant.
Gary M. Pasqua, District Attorney, Canton (Alexander A. V. Nichols of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.), renderedMay 2, 2019, convicting defendant upon his pleas of guilty of the crimes of assault in the seconddegree and sexual abuse in the first degree.
Defendant waived indictment and initially agreed to be prosecuted by two superior courtinformations—one charging him with assault in the second degree and the other charginghim with criminal sexual act in the third degree. Defendant agreed to waive his right to appealand pleaded guilty to the charged crimes, and the matter was adjourned for sentencing. CountyCourt subsequently advised defendant that, based upon its review of the presentenceinvestigation report, it could not honor its prior sentencing commitment and afforded defendantthe opportunity to withdraw his pleas. Defendant declined and again pleaded guilty to thesuperior court information (as amended to reflect the approximate time of the offense) charginghim with assault in the second degree.
With respect to the remaining superior court information, County Court vacated defendant'splea of guilty to the crime of criminal sexual act in the third degree, and defendant thereafterwaived indictment and agreed to be prosecuted by an amended superior court informationcharging him with one count of criminal sexual act in the third degree and one count of sexualabuse in the first degree. In full satisfaction of the amended superior court information, defendantagreed to plead guilty to sexual abuse in the first degree with the understanding that he would besentenced to two years in prison upon his assault conviction and four years in prison upon hissexual abuse conviction—said sentences to run consecutively—followed by periodsof postrelease supervision. The plea agreement also required defendant to waive his right toappeal. Defendant pleaded guilty in conformity with the agreement, and County Court imposedthe agreed-upon terms of imprisonment. This appeal ensued.
Although defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid, we disagree.During both the January 2019 and April 2019 plea colloquies, County Court explained that thewaiver of the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the trial-related rights that defendantwas forfeiting by pleading guilty and, further, delineated the appellate rights that survived saidwaiver (see People v Purnell, 186AD3d 1834, 1834 [2020], lv denied — NY3d — [2020]; People v Schroeder, 181 AD3d1095, 1095 [2020]). On both occasions, defendant also signed a written waiver of appeal,and, in response to County Court's inquiries, defendant indicated that he had read the writtenwaivers, understood their contents, had been afforded an opportunity to speak with counsel andhad no questions relative thereto (seePeople v White, 185 AD3d 1355, 1356 [2020], lv denied — NY3d— [2020]; People vCrawford, 181 AD3d 1057, 1058-1059 [2020]). Under these circumstances[*2], and as we discern no other infirmities in the appeal waiver (compare People v Thomas, 34 NY3d545 [2019]), we are satisfied that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waivedhis right to appeal (see People v Purnell, 186 AD3d at 1834). Accordingly, defendant'schallenge to the severity of the sentences imposed is precluded (see People v Williams, 185 AD3d1352, 1353 [2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1116 [2020]; People v King, 184 AD3d 909,910 [2020]).
Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Colangelo, JJ., concur. Ordered that thejudgment is affirmed.