Opinion
109590
04-11-2019
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Brandy J. BREITHAUPT, Appellant.
Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Keith F. Schockmel of counsel), for appellant. Gary M. Pasqua, District Attorney, Canton (Matthew L. Peabody of counsel), for respondent.
Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Keith F. Schockmel of counsel), for appellant.
Gary M. Pasqua, District Attorney, Canton (Matthew L. Peabody of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Mulvey, Devine and Aarons, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDERAppeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Champagne, J.), rendered June 12, 2017, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the second degree.
In full satisfaction of a 12–count indictment, defendant agreed to plead guilty to one count of robbery in the second degree with the understanding that she would be sentenced to a determinate prison term ranging from 10 to 12 years followed by five years of postrelease supervision. The plea agreement also required defendant to waive her right to appeal. Defendant pleaded guilty as contemplated and thereafter was sentenced to a prison term of 12 years followed by five years of postrelease supervision. This appeal ensued.
We affirm. Contrary to defendant's assertion, we find that her waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. County Court sufficiently distinguished the waiver of the right to appeal from the trial-related rights that defendant was forfeiting by pleading guilty (see People v. Hartfield, 151 A.D.3d 1116, 1118, 57 N.Y.S.3d 217 [2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1127, 64 N.Y.S.3d 677, 86 N.E.3d 569 [2017] ; People v. Hess, 150 A.D.3d 1560, 1560, 52 N.Y.S.3d 686 [2017] ) and explained that the waiver encompassed, among other things, any challenge to the severity of the sentence imposed. Additionally, defendant executed a detailed written waiver in open court and, in response to County Court's inquiries, defendant indicated that she had read the waiver, understood its contents, had no questions relative thereto and had been afforded sufficient time to confer with counsel (see People v. Jawan, 165 A.D.3d 1350, 1350, 82 N.Y.S.3d 905 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1173, 97 N.Y.S.3d 580, 121 N.E.3d 207 [2019] ; People v. McDonald, 165 A.D.3d 1327, 1327–1328, 83 N.Y.S.3d 751 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1175, 97 N.Y.S.3d 591, 121 N.E.3d 218 [2019] ). Under these circumstances, we find that defendant validly waived her right to appeal. Accordingly, her claim that the sentence imposed is harsh and excessive is precluded (see People v. Lago, 168 A.D.3d 1281, 1281–1282, 91 N.Y.S.3d 818 [2019] ; People v. Dissottle, 160 A.D.3d 1219, 1219, 71 N.Y.S.3d 914 [2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1146, 83 N.Y.S.3d 428, 108 N.E.3d 502 [2018] ).
Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Mulvey, Devine and Aarons, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.