PEOPLE v. FUTRELL (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Edward T. McLoughlin, J.), rendered March 24, 2023, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, his waiver of the right to appeal was valid.  Although much of the discussion of the waiver of the right to appeal took place after the defendant had admitted his guilt, the defendant twice acknowledged that an appeal waiver was a condition of the plea agreement prior to his plea of guilty and admission of guilt.  Thus, it cannot be said that the defendant “received no material benefit from his appeal waiver,” or that the appeal waiver “was a gratuitous, after-the-fact additional demand asserted after the bargain had already been struck” (People v. Sutton, 184 A.D.3d 236, 245, 125 N.Y.S.3d 739;  see People v. Sobers, 235 A.D.3d 908, 909, 227 N.Y.S.3d 694;  People v. Victor, 235 A.D.3d 783, 784, 226 N.Y.S.3d 592;  People v. White, 234 A.D.3d 884, 885, 225 N.Y.S.3d 378).  Under the totality of the circumstances, including the thorough explanation of the right to appeal provided to the defendant and the defendant's age, experience, and background, the waiver was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Sobers, 235 A.D.3d at 909, 227 N.Y.S.3d 694;  People v. Victor, 235 A.D.3d at 784, 226 N.Y.S.3d 592;  People v. White, 234 A.D.3d at 885, 225 N.Y.S.3d 378).

The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255–256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145).

IANNACCI, J.P., WOOTEN, DOWLING and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.