People v. Francabandera, 86 N.Y.2d 788 (1995)
A defendant’s voluntary and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal, made as part of a plea agreement, is enforceable, precluding appellate review of claims within the scope of the waiver, except for the legality of the sentence itself.
Summary
Francabandera pleaded guilty and waived her right to appeal as part of a plea bargain. On appeal, she challenged the excessiveness of her sentence. The New York Court of Appeals held that her waiver was valid and enforceable, precluding review of the sentence’s excessiveness. The court clarified that while a defendant can waive the right to appeal most issues, they cannot waive the right to appeal the legality of the sentence. The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s dismissal of the appeal, remitting the case with instructions to affirm the judgment and sentence instead.
Facts
The defendant, Francabandera, entered into a plea agreement. As part of the agreement, she explicitly waived her right to appeal any rulings made by the trial court, including the negotiated sentence.
Procedural History
The defendant appealed her sentence, claiming it was excessive. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal based on the waiver. The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the Appellate Division’s decision.
Issue(s)
Whether a defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal, made as part of a plea agreement, bars appellate review of a claim that the sentence is excessive.
Holding
Yes, because the defendant voluntarily and intelligently waived her right to appeal as part of a plea agreement, and a claim of excessiveness falls within the scope of a valid waiver. However, the proper disposition is affirmance of the judgment and sentence, not dismissal of the appeal.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized the importance of enforcing plea agreements, including waivers of the right to appeal, when they are made voluntarily and intelligently. The court reasoned that the defendant’s plea allocution demonstrated a clear understanding and acceptance of the waiver. The court distinguished between waiving the right to appeal the *excessiveness* of a sentence (which is permissible) and waiving the right to appeal the *legality* of a sentence (which is not). Citing People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 9, the court reiterated that a defendant may not effectively waive the right to appeal the legality of the sentence. The court interpreted the trial court’s statement that the defendant was waiving her right to appeal from “anything that has happened up to this point” as an indication that the waiver was intended to be all-encompassing, not a limitation on the scope of the waiver. Finally, the Court noted that the Appellate Division erred in dismissing the appeal; the proper disposition is to affirm the judgment and sentence, citing People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 285.