At page 1199 Determining validity of appeal waiver and sentence review11 citing cases
- People v. Gayle, 2023 NY Slip Op 05554 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2023).publishedIn view of defendant's valid appeal waiver, her challenge to the severity of her sentence is precluded ( see People v Parker , 196 AD3d 970, 971 [3d Dept 2021]; People v Mirel , 194 AD3d 1198, 1199 [3d Dept 2021]).
- People v. Knowlton, 2022 NY Slip Op 04765 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2022).publishedDefendant executed a written waiver after conferring with counsel, which indicated that it was applicable to, among other things, "any other matter which [defendant] may have an appeal as of right or otherwise." Such language erroneously s…
- People v. Magee, 2022 NY Slip Op 04766 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2022).publishedSimilarly, County Court's oral colloquy was insufficient to convey to defendant that certain appellate review survived the waiver ( see People v Linear , 200 AD3d 1498, 1499 [2021], lvs denied 38 NY3d 951 , 952 [2022]; People v Hilts , 200…
- People v. Ellithorpe, 2022 NY Slip Op 04764 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2022).publishedFurther, County Court's oral explanation of the waiver was insufficient to advise defendant that some appellate review nonetheless survived ( compare People v Vittengl , 203 AD3d 1390, 1391 [2022]; People v Mirel , 194 AD3d 1198, 1199 [202…
- People v. Vittengl, 2022 NY Slip Op 01842 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2022).publishedAccordingly, and as we otherwise discern no other infirmities in the waiver ( compare People v Thomas , 34 NY3d 545 , 562-563 [2019]), we find that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was valid ( see People v Carter , 200 AD3d 1312,…
- People v. Stockwell, 2022 NY Slip Op 01851 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2022).publishedIn light of the foregoing, we conclude that defendant's waiver of his right to appeal was knowing, intelligent and voluntary ( see People v Mirel , 194 AD3d 1198, 1199 [2021]; People v Eaton , 182 AD3d 922, 923 [2020]).
- People v. Champion-Barse, 2022 NY Slip Op 00475 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2022).publishedThe valid appeal waiver precludes our review of defendant's challenge to the severity of her sentence ( see People v Parker , 196 AD3d 970, 971 [2021]; People v Mirel , 194 AD3d 1198, 1199 [2021]).
- People v. Rivera, 2022 NY Slip Op 00218 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2022).publishedCounty Court (Richards, J.) explained the separate and distinct nature of the right to appeal and expressly delineated the rights that survived such waiver ( see People v Mirel , 194 AD3d 1198, 1199 [2021] People v Pribble , 190 AD3d 1194,…
- People v. Carter, 200 A.D.3d 1312 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2021).publishedIn each instance, defendant also executed a written appeal waiver — which specifically extended to the severity of the sentence — after conferring with counsel and assured the court that he understood its contents and was voluntarily waivi…
- People v. Christy, 155 N.Y.S.3d 384 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2021).publishedAccordingly, and as we discern no other infirmities of the waiver ( compare People v Thomas , 34 NY3d 545 , 562-563 [2019]), we find that defendant's appeal waiver was knowing, intelligent and voluntary ( see People v Mirel , 194 AD3d 1198…
Show 1 more citing case
- People v. Allen, 199 A.D.3d 1127 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2021).publishedWe are satisfied that the record demonstrates that defendant made a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal ( see People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Ballester-Perez , 195 AD3d 1234, 1235 [2021], lv d…
v.
Mirel
| People v Mirel |
| 2021 NY Slip Op 03084 |
| Decided on May 13, 2021 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided and Entered:May 13, 2021
111259
v
Robert J. Mirel, Also Known as Robert Morel and Rj Mirel, Appellant.
Calendar Date:April 16, 2021
Before:Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Clark, Aarons and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ.
Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Keith F. Schockmel of counsel), for appellant.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York City (Lisa E. Fleischmann of counsel), for respondent.
[*~1198–1199]
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County (Hall Jr., J.), rendered September 27, 2018, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of money laundering in the second degree, grand larceny in the second degree, scheme to defraud in the first degree and criminal tax fraud in the third degree.
In satisfaction of a 29-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to money laundering in the second degree, grand larceny in the second degree, scheme to defraud in the first degree and criminal tax fraud in the third degree and was required to waive his right to appeal. In accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 5 to 15 years for his convictions of money laundering in the second degree and grand larceny in the second degree and to lesser concurrent prison terms for the remaining convictions. Defendant appeals.
Contrary to defendant's contention, his waiver of the right to appeal was valid. County Court advised defendant that the waiver was a condition of his plea agreement and explained the separate and distinct nature of the waiver. County Court also explained the ramifications of the waiver and advised defendant that certain issues survive the waiver, and defendant confirmed his understanding thereof. Defendant then executed a written waiver after conferring with counsel, and he assured County Court that he understood its contents and was voluntarily waiving the right to appeal. Accordingly, and insofar as we discern no other infirmities of the waiver (compare People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 562-563 [2019]), we are satisfied that defendant's appeal waiver was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Eaton, 182 AD3d 922, 923 [2020]; People v Weidenheimer, 181 AD3d 1096, 1097 [2020]). Consequently, defendant is precluded from challenging the severity of the sentence (see People v Pribble, 190 AD3d 1194, 1195 [2021]; People v Williams, 185 AD3d 1352, 1353 [2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1116 [2020]).
Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Clark, Aarons and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.