State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: May 21, 2015 106024 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TRAVIS BRYANT,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: March 25, 2015

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Garry and Lynch, JJ.

__________

Bruce Evans Knoll, Albany, for appellant.

D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan

Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Lynch, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County

(Williams, J.), rendered July 10, 2013, convicting defendant upon

his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the first degree.

Defendant was charged in a six-count indictment with

various offenses after he broke into his paramour's residence and

threatened to set it and its inhabitants ablaze. In full

satisfaction of the indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to one

count of burglary in the first degree and waived his right to

appeal from the conviction and sentence. As part of the plea

arrangement, County Court agreed to sentence defendant to 12

years in prison to be followed by five years of postrelease

supervision. The court ultimately imposed that sentence, and

defendant now appeals.
-2- 106024 

Defendant initially argues that his appeal waiver violated

public policy, but it is well settled that "[w]aiving one's right

to appeal as part of a plea agreement is not inherently coercive

or against public policy" (People v Galietta, 75 AD3d 753, 754

[2010]; see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 8-10 [1989]; People v

Morrison, 106 AD3d 1201, 1202 [2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 1065

[2014]). While defendant complains that County Court improperly

injected itself into the plea bargaining process by refusing to

impose a lesser sentence that the People found acceptable, his

"argument[] overlook[s] the role of the trial court and its

obligation to insure the reasonableness of the bargain struck and

of the sentence imposed" (People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d at 8; see

People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305 [1981]; People v Selikoff, 35

NY2d 227, 240-241 [1974], cert denied 419 US 1122 [1975]). 

Defendant's further contention that County Court unilaterally

imposed an appeal waiver to insulate the sentence from appellate

review is not borne out by the record. The court held several

conferences with defense counsel and the People prior to

accepting the plea, and defense counsel confirmed that the court

accurately stated the terms of the plea agreement. Defendant's

appeal waiver was therefore not void as against public policy

and, despite his further contentions, our review of the record

confirms that it was made in a knowing, intelligent and voluntary

manner (see People v Balbuena, 123 AD3d 1384, 1385 [2014]; People

v Morrison, 106 AD3d at 1202). 

Defendant's challenge to the factual sufficiency of his

plea is precluded by his appeal waiver and is additionally

unpreserved due to his failure to raise it in an appropriate

postallocution motion (see People v Sibounhome, 125 AD3d 1059,

1060 [2015]; People v Durham, 110 AD3d 1145, 1145 [2013]). 

Defendant asserts that the narrow exception to the preservation

requirement was implicated when he made statements during the

plea colloquy that negated an element of burglary in the first

degree but, even if true, County Court satisfied its duty of

making further inquiry and ensuring that defendant had committed

the crime in question (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666-667

[1988]; People v Banks, 122 AD3d 953, 953-954 [2014]). 

Defendant's challenges to the procedures used to impose

sentence do not call the legality of the sentence itself into
-3- 106024 

question and, as such, are barred by his appeal waiver (see

People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 281 [1992]; People v Dewiel, 100

AD3d 1524, 1525 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1010 [2013]). 

Likewise, his appeal waiver forecloses his final contention that

the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive (see People v Lopez,

6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]; People v Morrison, 106 AD3d at 1202).

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court