PEOPLE v. STEGALL (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Hyun Chin Kim, J.), rendered April 25, 2025, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970;  People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145).  The County Court's colloquy substantially followed the model colloquy for the waiver of the right to appeal drafted by the Unified Court System's Criminal Jury Instructions and Model Colloquy Committee, the use of which has been endorsed by this Court (see e.g. People v. Batista, 167 A.D.3d 69, 76–78, 86 N.Y.S.3d 492) and by the Court of Appeals (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d at 566–567, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970).  Furthermore, any ambiguity in the oral colloquy as to the separate and distinct nature of the appeal waiver was cured by the written waiver (see People v. Torres, 244 A.D.3d 1256, 1257, 247 N.Y.S.3d 456;  People v. Patterson, 243 A.D.3d 810, 811, 243 N.Y.S.3d 183).

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 at 255, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145), as well as his contention that the sentence violated his constitutional rights against cruel and unusual punishment (see People v. Paz, 247 A.D.3d 794, 249 N.Y.S.3d 640;  People v. Archer, 239 A.D.3d 763, 764, 233 N.Y.S.3d 737).

To the extent that the defendant argues that his sentence was illegal, such contention survives his valid appeal waiver (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 255, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145).  However, contrary to the defendant's contention, the determinate sentence imposed upon his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree was lawful (see Penal Law § 70.70[4][b] ).

IANNACCI, J.P., VOUTSINAS, TAYLOR and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.