Opinion
No. 112424
06-09-2022
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael Park, Appellant.
Ruth Boyer, Public Defender, Kingston (Carly Burkhardt of counsel), for appellant. David J. Clegg, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.
Calendar Date: May 20, 2022
Ruth Boyer, Public Defender, Kingston (Carly Burkhardt of counsel), for appellant.
David J. Clegg, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Colangelo and McShan, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered October 10, 2019, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree.
In full satisfaction of a nine-count indictment charging him with, among other offenses, various sex crimes, defendant agreed to plead guilty to course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree with the understanding that he would be sentenced to a prison term of seven years followed by 10 years of postrelease supervision. The plea agreement also required defendant to waive his right to appeal. Following defendant's guilty plea, County Court imposed the agreed-upon term of imprisonment, prompting this appeal.
We affirm. Contrary to defendant's assertion, we find that his waiver of the right to appeal is valid. County Court informed defendant that a waiver of the right to appeal was a term of his plea agreement and explained that such waiver was separate and distinct from the trial-related rights that defendant would be forfeiting by pleading guilty; defendant, in turn, affirmed his understanding thereof and expressed his willingness to waive his right to appeal (see People v McCoy, 198 A.D.3d 1021, 1022 [2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1162 [2022]; People v Hemingway, 192 A.D.3d 1266, 1266 [2021], lvs denied 37 N.Y.3d 956, 960 [2021]). Additionally, defendant signed a detailed written waiver in open court and, in response to County Court's inquiries, confirmed that he had reviewed the waiver with counsel and had no questions relative thereto (see People v Parker, 196 A.D.3d 970, 971 [2021]; People v Ballester-Perez, 195 A.D.3d 1234, 1235 [2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 970 [2021]). Although defendant argues that, because the written appeal waiver applied "to all legal issues that can be waived under the law" (emphasis omitted), it purported to erect "an absolute bar to the pursuit of potential remedies, we are satisfied that the counseled defendant understood the distinction that some appellate review survived" (People v McCoy, 198 A.D.3d at 1022 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Soto, 199 A.D.3d 1128, 1129 [2021]; People v Ballester-Perez, 195 A.D.3d at 1235; but see People v Goodwalt, __ A.D.3d __, __, 2022 NY Slip Op 03029, *1 [2022]). Accordingly, we find that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. In light of the valid appeal waiver, defendant's challenge to the perceived severity of his sentence is precluded (see People v McCoy, 198 A.D.3d at 1022; People v Hemingway, 192 A.D.3d at 1267).
Egan Jr., J.P., Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Colangelo and McShan, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.