THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. BARRY RENERT

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. BARRY M. RENERT, Appellant.

107716

Decided: October 06, 2016

Before:  Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Rose and Aarons, JJ. Susan Patnode, Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Cynthia Feathers of counsel), for appellant. John M. Muehl, District Attorney, Cooperstown (Michael F. Getman of counsel), for respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Calendar Date:  September 15, 2016

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Otsego County (Burns, J.), rendered April 3, 2015, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the second degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the second degree in satisfaction of a three-count indictment as well as certain other criminal charges both charged and uncharged and waived his right to appeal.  Prior to sentencing, defendant moved to withdraw his plea on the ground that, among other things, his mental state at the time he entered his plea prevented him from knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entering into same.  County Court denied defendant's motion, without a hearing, and he was subsequently sentenced, in accord with his plea agreement, to 15 years in prison to be followed by three years of postrelease supervision.  Defendant now appeals.

We affirm.  Contrary to defendant's contention, a review of the plea colloquy demonstrates that he validly waived his right to appeal (see People v. Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264–265 [2011];  People v. Bethea, 133 AD3d 1033, 1033 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 992 [2016] ).  Although no written waiver of appeal was executed, County Court engaged in a thorough plea colloquy with defendant adequately informing him of the trial-related rights that he was automatically relinquishing as a result of the guilty plea, and then explaining that, as part of the plea bargain, he was also required to waive his separate right to appeal.  Defendant affirmatively represented that he understood (see People v. Scott, 139 AD3d 1266, 1266 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1155 [2016] ).  Moreover, upon questioning by County Court, defendant acknowledged that he had ample opportunity to discuss the plea agreement with counsel, he indicated that he was clearheaded and was not taking any medication that prevented him from understanding the proceedings and he offered no other evidence to substantiate his contention that his mental state at the time of his plea prevented him from knowingly and voluntarily entering a plea (see People v. Gasparro, 139 AD3d 1247, 1248 [2016], lv denied _ NY3d _ [Aug. 17, 2016];  People v. Johnson, 77 AD3d 986, 986–987 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 743 [2011] ).  Given defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal, he is precluded from arguing that the agreed-upon sentence was harsh and excessive (see People v. Gordon, 139 AD3d 1265, 1266 [2016], lv denied _ NY3d _ [Aug. 24, 2016] ).

Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Rose and Aarons, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court

Copied to clipboard