People v. Bonner, 109306

• Citation: 182 A.D.3d 867,120 N.Y.S.3d 862 (Mem)
• Decision Date: 23 April 2020
• Docket Number: 109306
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jonathan BONNER, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

182 A.D.3d 867
120 N.Y.S.3d 862 (Mem)

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Jonathan BONNER, Appellant.

109306

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: March 20, 2020
Decided and Entered: April 23, 2020

Cliff Gordon, Monticello, for appellant.

David J. Clegg, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Lynch, J.P., Clark, Devine, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Defendant initially was indicted and charged with criminal sexual act in the first degree, unlawfully dealing with a child and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts). Upon the People's request, the first count of the indictment was dismissed, and defendant thereafter agreed to be prosecuted pursuant to a superior court information charging him with one count of sexual abuse in the first degree with the understanding that County Court would impose a prison term of five years followed by 10 years of postrelease supervision. The plea agreement also required defendant to waive his right to appeal. Defendant pleaded guilty in conformity with the plea agreement and, following an adjournment to clarify the sentence to be imposed, County Court sentenced defendant to the agreed-upon term of five years in prison followed by 10 years of postrelease supervision. This appeal ensued.

Defendant initially contends that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid. We disagree. The plea minutes reveal that defendant was aware that he was required to waive his right to appeal as a condition of his plea agreement, and County Court, in turn, engaged in a detailed oral colloquy with defendant, during the course of which the court clearly explained the separate and distinct nature of the appeal waiver. In response to County Court's inquiries, defendant indicated that he understood the nature of the appeal waiver and that he was willing to waive his appellate rights. Although defendant did not execute the written appeal waiver that was presented to him during the plea colloquy, neither the absence of a written waiver of the right to appeal nor a defendant's failure to sign such a...