detailed written appeal waiver in New York

2018County Court explained that the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited by a guilty plea ( see People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Hess , 150 AD3d 1560 , 1560 [2017]), and the record further reflects that defendant executed a detailed written appeal waiver and acknowledged that he had discussed the waiver with counsel and understood it ( see People v Rutigliano , 159 AD3d 1280 , 1280 [2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1121 [2018]; People v Simmons , 159 AD3d 1270 , 1271 [2018]).

2012Contrary to defendant’s claim, his assertion that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive is precluded by that waiver (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]; People v Lewis, 95 AD3d at 1443 ).

2023Additionally, after conferring with counsel, defendant executed a detailed written appeal waiver that, although containing some overbroad language, expressly delineated the appellate rights that were not encompassed by the waiver and defendant affirmed that he had read, understood and had no questions relative thereto ( see People v Marshall , 206 AD3d 1377 , 1378 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 941 [2022]; People v Gincerowski , 205 AD3d 1152, 1153 [3d Dept 2022]; People v Thompson , 193 AD3d 1186, 1186 [3d Dept 2021]).

2023Additionally, after conferring with counsel, defendant executed a detailed written appeal waiver that, although containing some overbroad language, expressly delineated the appellate rights that were not encompassed by the waiver and defendant affirmed that he had read, understood and had no questions relative thereto ( see People v Marshall , 206 AD3d 1377 , 1378 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 941 [2022]; People v Gincerowski , 205 AD3d 1152, 1153 [3d Dept 2022]; People v Thompson , 193 AD3d 1186, 1186 [3d Dept 2021]).

2023As the combined oral and written waiver of appeal made clear that some appellate review survived, we are satisfied that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal ( see People v Drake , 217 AD3d 1273, 1273 [3d Dept 2023]; People v Defelice , 216 AD3d 1257 , 1258 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 933 [2023]).

2023As the combined oral and written waiver of appeal made clear that some appellate review survived, we are satisfied that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal ( see People v Drake , 217 AD3d 1273, 1273 [3d Dept 2023]; People v Defelice , 216 AD3d 1257 , 1258 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 933 [2023]).

2023Additionally, after conferring with counsel, defendant executed a detailed written appeal waiver that, although containing some overbroad language, expressly delineated the appellate rights that were not encompassed by the waiver and defendant affirmed that he had read, understood and had no questions relative thereto ( see People v Marshall , 206 AD3d 1377 , 1378 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 941 [2022]; People v Gincerowski , 205 AD3d 1152, 1153 [3d Dept 2022]; People v Thompson , 193 AD3d 1186, 1186 [3d Dept 2021]).

2023Additionally, after conferring with counsel, defendant executed a detailed written appeal waiver that, although containing some overbroad language, expressly delineated the appellate rights that were not encompassed by the waiver and defendant affirmed that he had read, understood and had no questions relative thereto ( see People v Marshall , 206 AD3d 1377 , 1378 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 941 [2022]; People v Gincerowski , 205 AD3d 1152, 1153 [3d Dept 2022]; People v Thompson , 193 AD3d 1186, 1186 [3d Dept 2021]).

2012Inasmuch as defendant also confirmed during the plea colloquy that he understood his appeal rights and wished to waive them, then executed a detailed written appeal waiver, we further conclude that he validly waived his right to appeal from the conviction and sentence (see People v Lewis, 95 AD3d 1442, 1443 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 998 [2012]).

2012Inasmuch as defendant also confirmed during the plea colloquy that he understood his appeal rights and wished to waive them, then executed a detailed written appeal waiver, we further conclude that he validly waived his right to appeal from the conviction and sentence (see People v Lewis, 95 AD3d 1442, 1443 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 998 [2012]).

2010Furthermore, after County Court explained the ramifications of the waiver, defendant acknowledged that she understood the terms thereof and then executed a detailed written appeal waiver in open court (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]).

2008Defendant also executed, a detailed written appeal waiver in open court, which explained the appellate process, reflected that counsel had fully advised him of the consequences of the waiver and stated that he was waiving his right to appeal voluntarily (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; People v Lewis, 48 AD3d 880, 881 [2008]; People v Fludd, 33 AD3d 1124,1125 [2006], lv denied 9 NY3d 843 [2007]).

2020Accordingly, we are satisfied that the waiver of appeal was knowing, voluntary and intelligent ( see People v Sanders , 25 NY3d at 339-341 ).

2019Contrary to defendant's contention, the foregoing shows his waiver of the right to appeal to have been knowing, intelligent and voluntary ( see People v Sanders , 25 NY3d 337, 340-342 [2015]; People v Boyette , 175 AD3d 751 , 752 [2019], lv denied ___ NY3d ___ [Oct. 29, 2019]; People v Sahler , 168 AD3d at 1314).

2025Contrary to defendant's contentions, "considering all the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the waiver, including the nature and terms of the agreement and the age, experience and background of the accused" ( People v Seaberg , 74 NY2d 1, 11 [1989]), we do not find that County Court's later brief misstatement regarding the scope of defendant's appellate rights, which occurred after he executed the appeal waiver, was so misleading as to invalidate defendant's appeal waiver ( see People v Jackson , 48 AD3d 885, 885-886 [3d Dept 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 960 [2008]).

2025Contrary to defendant's contentions, "considering all the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the waiver, including the nature and terms of the agreement and the age, experience and background of the accused" ( People v Seaberg , 74 NY2d 1, 11 [1989]), we do not find that County Court's later brief misstatement regarding the scope of defendant's appellate rights, which occurred after he executed the appeal waiver, was so misleading as to invalidate defendant's appeal waiver ( see People v Jackson , 48 AD3d 885, 885-886 [3d Dept 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 960 [2008]).

2022In view of the foregoing, we find that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived her right to appeal and, therefore, her challenge to the severity of the sentence imposed is precluded ( see People v Richards , 195 AD3d 1248, 1248 [2021]; People v Wilson , 194 AD3d 1195, 1196 [2021]).

2022In view of the foregoing, we find that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived her right to appeal and, therefore, her challenge to the severity of the sentence imposed is precluded ( see People v Richards , 195 AD3d 1248, 1248 [2021]; People v Wilson , 194 AD3d 1195, 1196 [2021]).

2018Finally, County Court expressly asked defendant whether she understood the meaning of the word "waiver" and, when defendant responded in the negative, the court elaborated further — following which defendant reaffirmed her desire to go forward with her plea ( compare People v Joseph PP. , 153 AD3d 970, 971 [2017]).

2018Counsel represented that he had reviewed the detailed written appeal waiver — which adequately outlined the rights that defendant was waiving — with defendant, who then confirmed that he had no questions before he signed it in court ( see People v Webb , 157 AD3d 1132 , 1132 [2018]; People v Zeller , 153 AD3d 1049, 1050-1051 [2017]).

2018While it is preferable that the court also explicitly ask a defendant if he or she has read the written waiver, under the circumstances, we are satisfied that the oral colloquy in combination with the written waiver reviewed with counsel establish that defendant's appeal waiver was knowing, voluntary and intelligent ( see People v Nichols , 155 AD3d 1186, 1187 [2017]; People v Zeller , 153 AD3d at 1050-1051 ; People v Empey , 144 AD3d 1201, 1202-1203 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1144 [2017]).

2018Additionally, defendant and her attorney executed a detailed written appeal waiver in open court ( see People v White , 154 AD3d 1012, 1013 [2017]; People v Adams , 153 AD3d 1449, 1450 [2017]).

2018Additionally, defendant and her attorney executed a detailed written appeal waiver in open court ( see People v White , 154 AD3d 1012, 1013 [2017]; People v Adams , 153 AD3d 1449, 1450 [2017]).

2018Accordingly, we find that defendant's combined oral and written waiver of appeal was knowing, intelligent and voluntary ( see People v Wood , 161 AD3d 1447 , 1448 [2018]; People v Baxter , 154 AD3d 1010, 1011 [2017]).

2018While it is preferable that the court also explicitly ask a defendant if he or she has read the written waiver, under the circumstances, we are satisfied that the oral colloquy in combination with the written waiver reviewed with counsel establish that defendant's appeal waiver was knowing, voluntary and intelligent ( see People v Nichols , 155 AD3d 1186, 1187 [2017]; People v Zeller , 153 AD3d at 1050-1051 ; People v Empey , 144 AD3d 1201, 1202-1203 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1144 [2017]).

2018While it is preferable that the court also explicitly ask a defendant if he or she has read the written waiver, under the circumstances, we are satisfied that the oral colloquy in combination with the written waiver reviewed with counsel establish that defendant's appeal waiver was knowing, voluntary and intelligent ( see People v Nichols , 155 AD3d 1186, 1187 [2017]; People v Zeller , 153 AD3d at 1050-1051 ; People v Empey , 144 AD3d 1201, 1202-1203 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1144 [2017]).

2017In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Bateman, 151 AD3d 1482, 1483 [2017]; People v Hutchison, 151 AD3d 1481, 1482 [2017]).

2017In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Bateman, 151 AD3d 1482, 1483 [2017]; People v Hutchison, 151 AD3d 1481, 1482 [2017]).

2017Furthermore, although a detailed written appeal waiver was executed by defendant, the court made “no attempt ... to ensure that defendant understood the content or consequences of the appeal waiver” (People v Herbert, 147 AD3d at 1209 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264 [2011]).

2017Furthermore, although a detailed written appeal waiver was executed by defendant, the court made “no attempt ... to ensure that defendant understood the content or consequences of the appeal waiver” (People v Herbert, 147 AD3d at 1209 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264 [2011]).

2016Defendant’s challenge to the sentence as harsh and excessive is precluded by the valid appeal waiver (see People v Beblowski, 131 AD3d 1303, 1304 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1085 [2015]; People v Morrison, 106 AD3d 1201 , 1202 [2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 1065 [2014]).

2016These acknowledgments by defendant, together with the detailed written appeal waiver executed by him in open court, establish a valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v White, 119 AD3d 1286 , 1287 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1222 [2015]; People v Martin, 105 AD3d 1266, 1267 [2013]).

2010The written waiver reflects defendant’s understanding that the waiver of his right to appeal is separate and distinct from the rights he relinquished by pleading guilty, indicates that defendant was provided a full opportunity to discuss the waiver and its consequences with his attorney, and confirms that defendant was waiving the right voluntarily (see People v McKenzie, 66 AD3d 1056, 1056 [2009]; People v Ramirez, 42 AD3d 671, 671-672 [2007]).