Opinion
2017–07089 (Ind. No. 89/16)
05-22-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Adam T. COTTELL, Appellant.
Thomas N.N. Angell, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Steven Levine of counsel), for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
Thomas N.N. Angell, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Steven Levine of counsel), for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, HECTOR D. LASALLE, BETSY BARROS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERAppeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Peter M. Forman, J.), rendered June 27, 2017, convicting him of aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree, criminal sexual act in the first degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was valid, as the record demonstrates that it was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The record shows that the defendant had a full appreciation of the consequences of the waiver, and understood that the appeal waiver was separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon his plea of guilty (see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 264, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 ; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ; People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 11, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022 ; People v. Batista, 167 A.D.3d 69, 73, 86 N.Y.S.3d 492 ). Although the defendant contends that the waiver was invalid because he was not advised at the time of his plea of the maximum permissible sentence, the requirement that a defendant be apprised of the maximum permissible sentence in order for a waiver to be valid does not apply in a situation where, as here, there is a specific sentence promise at the time of the waiver (see People v. Brown, 115 A.D.3d 1204, 1206, 982 N.Y.S.2d 255 ; People v. Grant, 294 A.D.2d 671, 672, 742 N.Y.S.2d 695 ; cf. People v. Lococo, 92 N.Y.2d 825, 677 N.Y.S.2d 57, 699 N.E.2d 416 ; People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46 ).
The defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal forecloses appellate review of his challenges to the hearing court's adverse suppression rulings (see People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754 ; People v. Kates, 162 A.D.3d 1627, 1628, 78 N.Y.S.3d 600 ; People v. Anlyan, 142 A.D.3d 670, 671, 36 N.Y.S.3d 829 ), as well as his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d at 264–265, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 ; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 255, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ; People v. Vecchio, 168 A.D.3d 1000, 90 N.Y.S.3d 564 ).
CHAMBERS, J.P., MALTESE, LASALLE and BARROS, JJ., concur.