Opinion
106601.
05-19-2016
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Thomas M. GASPARRO, Appellant.
Donna Marie Lasher, Youngsville, for appellant. D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.
Donna Marie Lasher, Youngsville, for appellant.
D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., LAHTINEN, EGAN JR., DEVINE and MULVEY, JJ.
PETERS, P.J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered November 15, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the second degree (two counts).
Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of burglary in the second degree in full satisfaction of a six-count indictment, and his plea included a waiver of the right to appeal. Prior to sentencing, defendant moved to withdraw his plea, alleging that it was the result of duress. County Court denied that motion without a hearing and thereafter sentenced defendant to five years in prison, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals. We affirm. Contrary to defendant's contention, the plea colloquy and counseled written waiver executed in open court demonstrate that he validly waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence (see People v. O'Keefe, 133 A.D.3d 1034, 1034–1035, 19 N.Y.S.3d 196 [2015], lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 1148, 32 N.Y.S.3d 62, 51 N.E.3d 573 [2016] ; People v. Long, 117 A.D.3d 1326, 1326, 986 N.Y.S.2d 670 [2014], lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 1003, 997 N.Y.S.2d 121, 21 N.E.3d 573 [2014] ). Defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal precludes us from reviewing his contention that his sentence is harsh and excessive (see People v. Butler, 134 A.D.3d 1349, 1350, 22 N.Y.S.3d 617 [2015], lvs. denied 27 N.Y.3d 962, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d –––– [2016], 27 N.Y.3d 963, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d –––– [2016]; People v. Bethea, 133 A.D.3d 1033, 1033–1034, 19 N.Y.S.3d 191 [2015] ).
As to defendant's plea, a review of the plea colloquy demonstrates that the plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently. County Court engaged in a lengthy colloquy informing defendant of the ramifications of the plea, including the rights he would be relinquishing, and defendant affirmed his understanding thereof and freely admitted to the commission of the crimes (see People v. Trimm, 129 A.D.3d 1215, 1216, 10 N.Y.S.3d 738 [2015] ; People v. Hoyt, 106 A.D.3d 1340, 1340, 965 N.Y.S.2d 253 [2013] ). Any claim that defendant was under duress at the time of the plea is belied by the record, as he assured County Court that he had discussed the plea with counsel and that he had not been threatened or coerced into pleading guilty (see People v. Hoyt, 106 A.D.3d at 1340, 965 N.Y.S.2d 253 ; People v. Phillips, 71 A.D.3d 1181, 1183–1184, 896 N.Y.S.2d 241 [2010], lvs. denied 15 N.Y.3d 755, 906 N.Y.S.2d 828, 933 N.E.2d 227 [2010] ). Finally, we reject defendant's contention that County Court should have further inquired into his mental condition at the time of his plea, inasmuch as he capably and coherently responded to the court's questions during the allocution, including stating that he was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs or suffering from any physical or mental impairments that prevented him from understanding the proceedings (see People v. Layton, 270 A.D.2d 714, 715, 706 N.Y.S.2d 360 [2000], lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 799, 711 N.Y.S.2d 167, 733 N.E.2d 239 [2000] ). Accordingly, County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea without a hearing.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
LAHTINEN, EGAN JR., DEVINE and MULVEY, JJ., concur.