| People v Crudup |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09140 [45 AD3d 1111] |
| November 21, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mark Crudup,Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Alfred D. Chapleau of counsel), forrespondent.
Mercure, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Eidens,J.), rendered December 15, 2004, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofattempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
Resolving a six-count indictment, defendant waived his right to appeal and pleaded guilty toattempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. County Court sentenced himin accordance with the plea agreement to 4 to 8 years in prison. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea, although notencompassed by his waiver of appeal, is not properly before us given his failure to move towithdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Smith, 37 AD3d 975, 975-976 [2007]). As fordefendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, it is precluded by his valid appeal waiverexcept insofar as the alleged ineffectiveness could be construed to have impacted upon thevoluntariness of his plea and, to that extent, the absence of a motion to withdraw the plea orvacate the judgment of conviction renders the matter unpreserved for our review (see People v Missimer, 32 AD3d1114, 1115 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 927 [2006]). Notwithstanding the foregoing,nothing in the record indicates that defendant's plea was other than voluntarily, knowingly andintelligently entered or that he was afforded less than meaningful [*2]representation (see People v La Caille, 26 AD3d 592, 593 [2006], lv denied6 NY3d 835 [2006]). Finally, in light of defendant's waiver of the right to appeal, his contentionthat his sentence is harsh and excessive is foreclosed (see People v Tedesco, 38 AD3d 1102, 1103 [2007], lvdenied 8 NY3d 991 [2007]).
Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.