Calendar Date: April 3, 2018Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Devine, Mulvey and Rumsey, JJ.__________Thomas F. Garner, Middleburgh, for appellant.Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Tracey A.Brunecz of counsel), for respondent.__________Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of SchenectadyCounty (Loyola, J.), rendered June 10, 2016, convicting defendantupon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the thirddegree.Following an investigation, defendant was charged in a twocountindictment with burglary in the third degree and grandlarceny in the third degree. Pursuant to a plea agreement,defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the third degree in fullsatisfaction of the charges and also executed a waiver of theright to appeal. Consistent with the terms of the pleaagreement, County Court sentenced him, as a second felonyoffender, to a prison term of 3 to 6 years. Defendant nowappeals, and we affirm.Initially, we agree with defendant that he did not validlywaive the right to appeal. County Court failed to explain todefendant “that the right to appeal is separate and distinct fromthose rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty”(People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; see People v Meddaugh,150 AD3d 1545, 1546 [2017]). Although the plea colloquy reflectsthat defendant purportedly executed a written waiver of appealand “file[d the waiver] with the clerk of the [c]ourt,” “therecord does not reflect that he read it, discussed it withcounsel or understood it, and it is not in the record on appeal”(People v Wright, 149 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2017]; see People vLarock, 139 AD3d 1241, 1242 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 932[2016]). Accordingly, inasmuch as the record does not establishthat defendant appreciated the consequences of the appeal waiver,it is invalid, and he is not precluded from challenging theseverity of his sentence (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 257;People v Barnes, 150 AD3d 1338, 1338 [2017]).Nevertheless, defendant’s claim that his agreed-uponsentence is harsh and excessive is unavailing. Given defendant’sextensive criminal record and his agreement to the sentence aspart of the negotiated plea agreement in full satisfaction of theindictment, we find no extraordinary circumstances or any abuseof discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence in theinterest of justice (see People v Torres, 81 AD3d 995, 995[2011]; People v Johnson, 12 AD3d 941, 941 [2004]; People v Rose,189 AD2d 924, 924 [1993]).Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Devine, Mulvey and Rumsey, JJ.,concur.ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.ENTER:Robert D. MaybergerClerk of the Court
