People v. McRae

• Decision Date: 10 December 2014
• Citation: 996 N.Y.S.2d 531,123 A.D.3d 848,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 08664
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Aaron M. McRAE, appellant.

?123 A.D.3d 848
996 N.Y.S.2d 531
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 08664

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Aaron M. McRAE, appellant.

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

Dec. 10, 2014

Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Alfred J. Cicale of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Michael J. Brennan of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Suffolk County (Efman, J.), imposed March 13, 2012, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.

The record of the plea proceeding demonstrates that the defendant received “[an]

[996 N.Y.S.2d 532]

explanation of the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving that right” ( People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d 133, 144, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297). Under the circumstances presented here, which include consideration of the defendant's individual characteristics, we conclude that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal ( see generally People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 264–267, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645; People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d 737, 738, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145; People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 735, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46). Accordingly, the defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive ( see People v. Hardy, 120 A.D.3d 1358, 992 N.Y.S.2d 339; People v. Arteev, 120 A.D.3d 1255, 991 N.Y.S.2d 776; People v. Alexander, 104 A.D.3d 862, 862, 960 N.Y.S.2d 659).

ENG, P.J., BALKIN, DICKERSON and MILLER, JJ., concur.