People v. Maxwell

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: AARONS, J.
• Citation: People v. Maxwell, 2016 NY Slip Op 5887, 142 A.D.3d 739, 36 N.Y.S.3d 832(Mem) (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
• Decision Date: 25 August 2016
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Matthew S. MAXWELL, Appellant.

142 A.D.3d 739

36 N.Y.S.3d 832 (Mem)

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 05887

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Matthew S. MAXWELL, Appellant.

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

Aug. 25, 2016.

G. Scott Walling, Schenectady, for appellant.

J. Anthony Jordan, District Attorney, Fort Edward (Sara E. Fischer of counsel), for respondent.

Before: GARRY, J.P., EGAN JR., DEVINE, MULVEY and AARONS, JJ.

AARONS, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County (McKeighan, J.), rendered January 16, 2015, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of assault in the second degree and escape in the first degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to assault in the second degree and escape in the first degree in full satisfaction of a four-count indictment, and his plea agreement included the waiver of the right to appeal. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant, as a second felony offender, to the agreed-upon prison terms of five years on the assault conviction, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision, and 2 to 4 years on the escape conviction, the sentences to run consecutively. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Initially, we agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal was not valid, inasmuch as the record does not establish that defendant understood that the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the rights forfeited by a guilty plea (see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 264–265, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 [2011] ; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256–257, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006] ). As such, his challenge to the severity of his sentences is properly before us. Nonetheless, our review of the record does not reveal an abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the agreed-upon sentences in the interest of justice (see People v. Filion, 134 A.D.3d 1244, 1245, 19 N.Y.S.3d 918 [2015], lv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 996, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, –––N.E.3d –––– [2016] ; People v. Anderson, 129 A.D.3d 1385, 1385, 10 N.Y.S.3d 903 [2015], lvs. denied 26 N.Y.3d 965, 18 N.Y.S.3d 601, 40 N.E.3d 579 [2015] ).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

GARRY, J.P., EGAN JR., DEVINE and MULVEY, JJ., concur.