PEOPLE v. WRIGHT (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted assault in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.10 [1]), criminal sexual act in the second degree (former § 130.45 [1]), and assault in the third degree (§ 120.00 [1]), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is unenforceable, that County Court erred in denying him youthful offender status, and that his sentence is unduly harsh and severe. We affirm.

Contrary to defendant's contentions, a waiver of the right to appeal is not unconscionable per se, it is not improper for the People to demand a waiver of the right to appeal as a condition of a plea bargain, and an appeal waiver is not rendered unenforceable due to circumstances inherent to the plea bargaining process in general (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 557, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 [2019], cert denied ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 2634, 206 L.Ed.2d 512 [2020]; People v. Brinkman, 240 A.D.3d 1431, 1431-1432, 235 N.Y.S.3d 882 [4th Dept. 2025], lv denied 44 N.Y.3d 1027, 246 N.Y.S.3d 316, 272 N.E.3d 1153 [2025]; People v. Barr, 192 A.D.3d 1571, 1571, 140 N.Y.S.3d 858 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 954, 147 N.Y.S.3d 511, 170 N.E.3d 385 [2021]). Inasmuch as the record here establishes that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, we conclude that the waiver is valid (see generally People v. Figueroa, 230 A.D.3d 1581, 1582, 218 N.Y.S.3d 871 [4th Dept. 2024], lv denied 42 N.Y.3d 1079, 227 N.Y.S.3d 564, 252 N.E.3d 503 [2025]). Defendant's valid appeal waiver forecloses our review of his challenge to the court's discretionary decision to deny youthful offender status, any request that we exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to adjudicate him a youthful offender, and his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v. Malcolm, 231 A.D.3d 1503, 1504, 218 N.Y.S.3d 176 [4th Dept. 2024], lv denied 43 N.Y.3d 931, 229 N.Y.S.3d 88, 254 N.E.3d 632 [2025]; see also People v. Burch, 234 A.D.3d 1246, 1247, 226 N.Y.S.3d 433 [4th Dept. 2025], lv denied 43 N.Y.3d 1006, 234 N.Y.S.3d 794, 261 N.E.3d 929 [2025]; People v. Stackhouse, 214 A.D.3d 1303, 1303, 185 N.Y.S.3d 428 [4th Dept. 2023], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 1157, 190 N.Y.S.3d 694, 211 N.E.3d 1147 [2023]).

We note, however, that both the certificate of disposition and uniform sentence and commitment form in the record transpose the sentences imposed for assault in the third degree and criminal sexual act in the second degree and must be amended to reflect the correct sentence for each crime (see generally People v. Williams, 233 A.D.3d 1463, 1465, 224 N.Y.S.3d 289 [4th Dept. 2024], lv denied 43 N.Y.3d 1012, 234 N.Y.S.3d 795, 261 N.E.3d 930 [2025]).