Opinion
112224
05-12-2022
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael P. Gincerowski Jr., Appellant.
John R. Trice, Elmira, for appellant. Michael A. Korchak, District Attorney, Binghamton (Benjamin E. Howlitt of counsel), for respondent.
Calendar Date: April 15, 2022
John R. Trice, Elmira, for appellant.
Michael A. Korchak, District Attorney, Binghamton (Benjamin E. Howlitt of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Lynch, J.P., Aarons, Pritzker, Fisher and McShan, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Dooley, J.), rendered November 15, 2019, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of vehicular manslaughter in the first degree and aggravated driving while intoxicated.
In full satisfaction of a 17-count indictment, defendant agreed to plead guilty to one count each of vehicular manslaughter in the first degree and aggravated driving while intoxicated with the understanding that he would be sentenced to a prison term of 5 to 15 years upon the vehicular manslaughter conviction and to a three-year conditional discharge upon the aggravated driving while intoxicated conviction - said sentences to run consecutively. The charges stemmed from an incident resulting in the violent death of a 16-year-old cyclist, and the plea agreement required defendant to waive his right to appeal. Defendant pleaded guilty in conformity with the plea agreement, and County Court imposed the contemplated sentence. This appeal ensued.
We affirm. Initially, we reject defendant's assertion that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid. County Court explained the separate and distinct nature of the waiver of the right to appeal and discussed with defendant the appellate rights that would survive such waiver (see People v Lapoint, 201 A.D.3d 1258, 1258 [2022]; People v Ballester-Perez, 195 A.D.3d 1234, 1235 [2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 970 [2021]; People v Thomas, 190 A.D.3d 1157, 1158 [2021]). In addition to assuring the court that he understood the appellate rights that he was relinquishing, defendant signed a written waiver in open court, which he confirmed that he had read, discussed with counsel and understood (see People v McCoy, 198 A.D.3d 1021, 1022 [2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1162 [2022]; People v Hernandez, 188 A.D.3d 1357, 1358 [2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 1057 [2021]). Although the written waiver contains some overbroad language, it nonetheless made clear "that certain issues survive[d]..., including the right to a speedy trial, competency matters, the legality of the sentence, the voluntariness of [defendant's] plea and any other issue deemed non-waivable by a higher court" (People v Hernandez, 188 A.D.3d at 1358 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Andino, 185 A.D.3d 1218, 1218 [2020], lvs denied 35 N.Y.3d 1110, 1116 [2020]). Under these circumstances, "we are satisfied that the counseled defendant understood the distinction that some appellate review survived" (People v Hernandez, 188 A.D.3d at 1358 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v Andino, 185 A.D.3d at 1218), and thus find that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Rollins, 203 A.D.3d 1386, 1387 [2022]). In light of the valid appeal waiver, defendant's challenge to the perceived severity of his sentence is precluded (see People v Lapoint, 201 A.D.3d at 1258; People v Crampton, 201 A.D.3d 1020, 1021 [2022], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1160 [2022]).
Lynch, J.P., Aarons, Pritzker, Fisher and McShan, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.