Opinion
06-30-2017
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Bruce W. BUTLER, Defendant–Appellant.
Davison Law Office PLLC, Canandaigua (Mary P. Davison of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Brooks T. Baker, District Attorney, Bath (John C. Tunney of Counsel), for Respondent.
Davison Law Office PLLC, Canandaigua (Mary P. Davison of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Brooks T. Baker, District Attorney, Bath (John C. Tunney of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, DeJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of two counts of grand larceny in the second degree (Penal Law § 155.40[1] ). Contrary to the contention of defendant, the oral waiver of the right to appeal and the waiver contained in the written plea agreement establish that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to appeal (see People v. McArthur, 149 A.D.3d 1568, 1568–1569, 52 N.Y.S.3d 600 ; see generally People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ). Defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal, which specifically included a waiver of the right to challenge "the conviction, sentence, and any proceedings that may result from this prosecution," encompasses his contention that the sentence imposed is unduly harsh and severe (see Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 255–256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ;
People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 737, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46 ; cf. People v. Maracle, 19 N.Y.3d 925, 928, 950 N.Y.S.2d 498, 973 N.E.2d 1272 ).
Defendant's contention that County Court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry before determining that he violated the conditions of his interim probation is not preserved for our review (see People v. Wissert, 85 A.D.3d 1633, 1633–1634, 924 N.Y.S.2d 909, lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 956, 936 N.Y.S.2d 82, 959 N.E.2d 1031 ; People v. Saucier, 69 A.D.3d 1125, 1125–1126, 892 N.Y.S.2d 684 ). In any event, defendant's contention is without merit. "[T]he summary hearing conducted by the court was sufficient pursuant to CPL 400.10(3) to enable the court to ‘assure itself that the information upon which it bas [ed] the sentence [was] reliable and accurate’ " (People v. Rollins, 50 A.D.3d 1535, 1536, 856 N.Y.S.2d 417, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 939, 862 N.Y.S.2d 345, 892 N.E.2d 411, quoting People v. Outley, 80 N.Y.2d 702, 712, 594 N.Y.S.2d 683, 610 N.E.2d 356 ; see Saucier, 69 A.D.3d at 1126, 892 N.Y.S.2d 684 ). "[T]he court's inquiry into the matter was of sufficient depth to enable the court to determine that defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of his interim probation" (Wissert, 85 A.D.3d at 1634, 924 N.Y.S.2d 909 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Indeed, defendant did not dispute the People's allegation that he failed to comply with the condition that he pay restitution to the victim.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.