PEOPLE v. JACKSON (2025)

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J.), rendered March 3, 2023, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the third degree and sentencing him to a one-year conditional discharge, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's appeal waiver was valid, foreclosing review of his speedy trial claim.  “The combination of the court's colloquy and the detailed written waiver that defendant signed after consultation with counsel satisfied the requirements of a valid waiver” (People v. Commisso, 224 A.D.3d 463, 464, 203 N.Y.S.3d 92 [1st Dept. 2024], lv denied 41 N.Y.3d 1001, 213 N.Y.S.3d 249, 236 N.E.3d 1267 [2024];  see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 560, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 [2019]).  Specifically, the court's colloquy explained in clear and comprehensive detail the nature of the appellate rights being waived, as did the written waiver.  Furthermore, defendant explicitly acknowledged to the court that he understood the rights he was waiving;  that these rights were distinct from his trial rights and a condition of his guilty plea;  that he was satisfied with his counsel's representation, had read the waiver of appeal and had an opportunity to discuss it with counsel;  and that he was voluntarily waiving his right to appeal (see People v. Castillo, 226 A.D.3d 573, 574, 207 N.Y.S.3d 525 [1st Dept. 2024], lv denied 41 N.Y.3d 1017, 214 N.Y.S.3d 306, 237 N.E.3d 1246 [2024]).

Contrary to defendant's contention, the fact that he signed the waiver of appeal before his oral colloquy did not render the waiver involuntary or unknowing (see People v. Guzman, 237 A.D.3d 570, 571, 232 N.Y.S.3d 127 [1st Dept. 2025], lv denied 44 N.Y.3d 993, 242 N.Y.S.3d 215, 269 N.E.3d 201 [2025]).  While defendant admitted his guilt in open court before the court addressed the waiver of appeal, he “had a full appreciation of the consequences of the waiver,” and the waiver was voluntary under the “totality of the circumstances” (People v. Castillo, 226 A.D.3d at 574, 207 N.Y.S.3d 525).

The record does not support defendant's contention that the court misled him as to his right to counsel on any appeal of the limited issues he was still entitled to pursue notwithstanding the waiver.  The court never stated that defendant waived his right to counsel with respect to such claims (contra People v. Kyra J., 180 A.D.3d 929, 929–30, 115 N.Y.S.3d 905 [2d Dept. 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 971, 125 N.Y.S.3d 28, 148 N.E.3d 492 [2020]).

As an alternative holding, we reject defendant's statutory speedy trial claim.  We perceive no errors of law or fact by the court, which appropriately charged the People with 76 days of delay, well below the permissible six months (see CPL 30.30[1][a]).