THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK RESPONDENT v. DARNELL CLEVELAND ALSO KNOWN AS DARNELL ROGERS CLEVELAND ALSO KNOWN AS DARNELL CLEVELAND DEFENDANT APPELLANT (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20). We affirm.

Defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because County Court failed to identify the precise claims that survived the waiver of appeal. We reject defendant's contention. “No ‘particular litany’ is required for a waiver of the right to appeal to be valid” (People v Wood, 217 AD3d 1407, 1408 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 1000 [2023]), and a court “ ‘need not expressly delineate for a defendant those appellate issues that are foreclosed by a waiver of the right to appeal, and those that survive, in order for the court to obtain a valid appeal waiver’ ” (People v Parker, 151 AD3d 1876, 1876 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 982 [2017]; see People v Giles, 219 AD3d 1706, 1707 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 1039 [2023]). Moreover, the record reflects that defendant confirmed to the court that he spoke with defense counsel about the rights he retained under the waiver of appeal and that the written appeal waiver signed by defendant identified the issues that could be raised despite the appeal waiver. Thus, the record establishes that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Cunningham, 213 AD3d 1270, 1270 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 39 NY3d 1110 [2023]; see generally People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 559-564 [2019], cert denied 589 US 1302 [2020]).

Because the court advised defendant of the maximum sentence that could be imposed upon a violation of the plea agreement, “the waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses [his] further contention that the enhanced sentence is unduly harsh [and] severe” (People v May, 169 AD3d 1365, 1365 [4th Dept 2019] [internal quotation marks omitted]; cf. People v Edwards, 239 AD3d 1478, 1478 [4th Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1010 [2025]).

Although defendant's contention that the court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence based on his postplea conduct survives his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v O’Brien, 98 AD3d 1264, 1264 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1063 [2013]), that contention “is not preserved for our review because defendant did not object to the enhanced sentence, nor did he move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction” (People v Sprague, 82 AD3d 1649, 1649 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 801 [2011]). In any event, because defendant violated a condition of the plea agreement by failing to appear at sentencing, “the court [was] no longer bound by the agreement and [was] free to impose a greater sentence” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]).

We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that none warrants reversal or modification of the judgment.

Entered: July 24, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court