PEOPLE v. DEAN (2008)

 In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.41[1] ) and, in appeal No. 2, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.39[1] ).   County Court informed defendant at the time of the pleas that he would be sentenced to the “maximum” period of postrelease supervision.   Although defendant's pleas were not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered because the court failed to inform him prior to the entry of each plea of the period of postrelease supervision that would be imposed at sentencing (see People v. Boyd, 50 A.D.3d 1578, 855 N.Y.S.2d 789), the remedy for the court's error is vacatur of the pleas (see id.), and defendant has expressly stated that he does not wish to be afforded that remedy (see generally People v. Sparber, 10 N.Y.3d 457, 859 N.Y.S.2d 582, 889 N.E.2d 459).   We reject the contention of defendant that the court's error renders his waiver of the right to appeal invalid with respect to each appeal (see generally People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145), and defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentences is thus encompassed by that valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 737, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46;  People v. Dupont, 292 A.D.2d 872, 738 N.Y.S.2d 917, lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 650, 745 N.Y.S.2d 508, 772 N.E.2d 611;  People v. Wilson, 284 A.D.2d 959, 726 N.Y.S.2d 323, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 943, 733 N.Y.S.2d 383, 759 N.E.2d 382).

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

MEMORANDUM: