Opinion
03-01-2017
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Philip BLACKWOOD, appellant.
Arza Feldman, Uniondale, NY, for appellant. Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Hae Jin Liu and Laurie G. Sapakoff of counsel), for respondent.
Arza Feldman, Uniondale, NY, for appellant.
Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Hae Jin Liu and Laurie G. Sapakoff of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, ROBERT J. MILLER and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), rendered December 1, 2015, convicting him of criminal possession of weapon in the third degree and obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the waiver of his right to appeal was valid. Although the Court of Appeals has "repeatedly observed that there is no mandatory litany that must be used in order to obtain a valid waiver of appellate rights" (People v. Johnson, 14 N.Y.3d 483, 486, 903 N.Y.S.2d 299, 929 N.E.2d 361 ), the record must demonstrate that the defendant "intentionally relinquish[ed] or abandon[ed] a known right that would otherwise survive a guilty plea" (People v. Hansen, 95 N.Y.2d 227, 230 n. 1, 715 N.Y.S.2d 369, 738 N.E.2d 773 ; see People v. Johnson, 14 N.Y.3d at 486, 903 N.Y.S.2d 299, 929 N.E.2d 361 ). "The best way to ensure that the record reflects that the right is known and intentionally relinquished by the defendant is to fully explain to the defendant, on the record, the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving it" (People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d 133, 142, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297 ).
Here, the record of the plea proceeding demonstrates that the defendant received an explanation of the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving that right (see People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d at 144, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record adequately demonstrates that the defendant understood the distinction between the right to appeal and the trial rights automatically forfeited incident to a plea of guilty (see People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 341, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ). On the record presented, the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Stiles, 143 A.D.3d 747, 38 N.Y.S.3d 436 ; People v. Romero–Flores, 128 A.D.3d 1102, 1102, 8 N.Y.S.3d 606 ; People v. McRae, 123 A.D.3d 848, 848, 996 N.Y.S.2d 531 ). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the County Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying his application for a second adjournment prior to sentencing (see People v. Murphy, 114 A.D.3d 704, 705–706, 979 N.Y.S.2d 829 ; People v. Watt, 82 A.D.3d 912, 912, 918 N.Y.S.2d 347 ; see also People v. Spears, 64 N.Y.2d 698, 699–700, 485 N.Y.S.2d 521, 474 N.E.2d 1189 ; cf. La Rocca v. Lane, 47 A.D.2d 243, 245–246, 366 N.Y.S.2d 456, affd. 37 N.Y.2d 575, 376 N.Y.S.2d 93, 338 N.E.2d 606 ).