Opinion
108781
04-26-2018
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ruben J. QUINONES, Appellant.
Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Kelly L. Egan of counsel), for appellant. Gary M. Pasqua, District Attorney, Canton (Matthew J. Peabody of counsel), for respondent.
Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Kelly L. Egan of counsel), for appellant.
Gary M. Pasqua, District Attorney, Canton (Matthew J. Peabody of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Garry, P.J., McCarthy, Mulvey, Aarons and Rumsey, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDERAppeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richey, J.), rendered August 18, 2016, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminal trespass in the second degree and identity theft in the third degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminal trespass in the second degree and identity theft in the third degree as charged in an indictment and waived his right to appeal. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, defendant was placed on interim probation and, if successful, would be permitted to withdraw his plea and enter a plea to a misdemeanor with a period of probation to be imposed at sentencing. Thereafter, defendant failed to comply with the terms of the interim probation and County Court sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of 1 to 3 years. Defendant appeals.
We are unpersuaded by defendant's contention that the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid (see People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 340–342, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 [2015] ; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006] ). The record reflects that County Court (Richards, J.) informed defendant of the separate and distinct nature of the right to appeal and that defendant acknowledged that he understood and was voluntarily relinquishing those rights. Defendant then executed in open court a written waiver after reading and discussing it with counsel, and confirmed that he understood it. In view of the foregoing, the record demonstrates that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Weir, 155 A.D.3d 1190, 1191, 63 N.Y.S.3d 256 [2017] ; People v. Tulip, 150 A.D.3d 1564, 1565, 52 N.Y.S.3d 679 [2017] ). As such, defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentence is precluded (see People v. Upshur, 150 A.D.3d 1552, 1553, 52 N.Y.S.3d 685 [2017] ; People v. Fifield, 149 A.D.3d 1420, 1421, 52 N.Y.S.3d 727 [2017] ).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Garry, P.J., McCarthy, Mulvey, Aarons and Rumsey, JJ., concur.