People v. Hall

• Decision Date: 13 December 2018
• Docket Number: 109191
• Citation: 167 A.D.3d 1165,89 N.Y.S.3d 481
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles HALL, Also Known as Akbar, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

167 A.D.3d 1165
89 N.Y.S.3d 481

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Charles HALL, Also Known as Akbar, Appellant.

109191

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

Calendar Date: November 14, 2018
Decided and Entered: December 13, 2018

89 N.Y.S.3d 482

Aaron A. Louridas, Delmar, for appellant.

Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General, New York City (Dennis A. Rambaud of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Devine, J.P., Mulvey, Aarons, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Aarons, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Breslin, J.), rendered October 27, 2016 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

Defendant was charged in an indictment with conspiracy in the second degree and attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. In satisfaction thereof, defendant pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and waived his right to appeal. He was sentenced as a second felony offender, in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, to a prison term of two years followed by two years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals, and we affirm.

We are unpersuaded by defendant's contention that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid. County Court distinguished the right to appeal as separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited by a guilty plea, and a written appeal waiver was executed in open court. The written waiver indicated that defendant had been informed by his counsel of the consequences of the waiver, and defendant acknowledged that he signed and understood the waiver after conferring with counsel regarding its contents. We therefore find that defendant's combined oral and written waiver of the right to appeal was valid (see People v. Nieves, 163 A.D.3d 1359, 1359–1360, 77 N.Y.S.3d 908 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1006, 86 N.Y.S.3d 765, 111 N.E.3d 1121 [2018] ; People v. Venable, 161 A.D.3d 1315, 1315, 73 N.Y.S.3d 459 [2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1154, 83 N.Y.S.3d 435, 108 N.E.3d 509 [2018] ). As such, defendant's contention

89 N.Y.S.3d 483

that his sentence is harsh and excessive is precluded by his valid appeal wavier (see People v. Royal, 161 A.D.3d 1217, 1218, 77 N.Y.S.3d 181 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1007, 86 N.Y.S.3d 766, 111 N.E.3d 1122 [2018] ; People v. Dutcher, 156 A.D.3d 1122, 1122, 67 N.Y.S.3d 354 [2017] ).

Defendant next contends that his guilty plea was...