PEOPLE v. JACKSON (2006)

 In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a nonjury trial on stipulated facts of two counts of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.75[1][b] ).  In appeal No. 2, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following the same nonjury trial of bribing a witness (§ 215.00).   We reject the contention of defendant concerning the alleged invalidity of his waiver of the right to appeal.   Defendant executed a written waiver of the right to appeal, and the record establishes that the waiver was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Johnston, 17 A.D.3d 1103, 793 N.Y.S.2d 806, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 829, 804 N.Y.S.2d 43, 837 N.E.2d 742).   That waiver encompasses defendant's contention regarding the severity of the sentences imposed in each appeal (see People v. Lococo, 92 N.Y.2d 825, 827, 677 N.Y.S.2d 57, 699 N.E.2d 416) and, in addition, encompasses defendant's contention concerning the alleged error of County Court in conducting a bench trial on stipulated facts.   Defendant specifically requested a bench trial on stipulated facts in exchange for an agreed-upon sentence, and he waived his right to appeal with respect to proceeding in that manner.   In any event, there is no error in conducting a bench trial on stipulated facts (see People v. Harler, 296 A.D.2d 712, 713, 744 N.Y.S.2d 916;  People v. Boateng, 246 A.D.2d 749, 749-750, 668 N.Y.S.2d 401, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 970, 672 N.Y.S.2d 849, 695 N.E.2d 718).

 Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that his waiver of the right to a jury trial was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary (see People v. Staples, 19 A.D.3d 1096, 796 N.Y.S.2d 209, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 810, 803 N.Y.S.2d 39, 836 N.E.2d 1162;  People v. Williams, 5 A.D.3d 1043, 1044, 773 N.Y.S.2d 696, lv. denied 2 N.Y.3d 809, 781 N.Y.S.2d 308, 814 N.E.2d 480).   That contention is without merit in any event because defendant's waiver of the right to a jury trial was both in writing and executed in open court (see N.Y. Const., art. I, § 2;  CPL 320.10 [2];  Staples, 19 A.D.3d at 1096-1097, 796 N.Y.S.2d 209), and “the record establishes that defendant's waiver was knowing, voluntary and intelligent” (People v. Wegman, 2 A.D.3d 1333, 1334, 769 N.Y.S.2d 682, lv. denied 2 N.Y.3d 747, 778 N.Y.S.2d 473, 810 N.E.2d 926).   Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contentions concerning the court's failure to advise him that he was subject to a period of postrelease supervision and that he was subject to registration under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.;   see People v. Ginter, 23 A.D.3d 1064, 807 N.Y.S.2d 760), and we decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6][a] ).   Finally, contrary to the contention of defendant, he received effective assistance of counsel (see generally People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: