Opinion
No. 113246
02-02-2023
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eddie Robinson, Appellant.
Lisa A. Burgess, Indian Lake, for appellant. J. Anthony Jordan, District Attorney, Fort Edward (Taylor R. Fitzsimmons of counsel), for respondent.
Calendar Date: January 6, 2023
Lisa A. Burgess, Indian Lake, for appellant.
J. Anthony Jordan, District Attorney, Fort Edward (Taylor R. Fitzsimmons of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Aarons, Fisher and McShan, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County (Kelly S. McKeighan, J.), rendered May 4, 2018, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of burglary in the second degree and criminal solicitation in the third degree.
In satisfaction of a seven-count indictment and other uncharged crimes, defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the second degree and criminal solicitation in the third degree. The plea agreement also required defendant to waive his right to appeal. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant, in accordance with the plea agreement, to a prison term of 10 years, to be followed by 2½ years of postrelease supervision, on the burglary conviction and a concurrent prison term of 1 to 3 years on the criminal solicitation conviction. Defendant appeals.
Contrary to defendant's contention, his waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Defendant was advised that a waiver of the right to appeal was a term and condition of the plea agreement, and County Court explained the separate and distinct nature of the waiver and defendant acknowledged that he understood (see People v Gatchell, 208 A.D.3d 1549, 1550 [3d Dept 2022]; People v Marshall, 206 A.D.3d 1377, 1378 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 941 [2022]). Moreover, defendant, after conferring with counsel, executed a written waiver that expressly informed him that certain appellate issues survive the waiver, and defendant affirmed that he had discussed the written waiver with counsel and understood its contents (see People v Williams, 208 A.D.3d 1499, 1500 [3d Dept 2022]; People v Ruest, 206 A.D.3d 1174, 1174-1175 [3d Dept 2022]). Under these circumstances, we conclude that defendant's appeal waiver is valid (see People v Gatchell, 208 A.D.3d at 1550; People v Williams, 208 A.D.3d at 1500; People v Ruest, 206 A.D.3d at 1175). In light of the valid appeal waiver, defendant's challenge to his sentence as harsh and severe is foreclosed (see People v Cook, 208 A.D.3d 1508, 1509 [3d Dept 2022]; People v Grimshaw, 207 A.D.3d 959, 960 [3d Dept 2022]).
Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Aarons, Fisher and McShan, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.