| People v Vallance |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01875 [49 AD3d 917] |
| March 6, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ricky L.Vallance, Appellant. |
—[*1] Nicole M. Duve, District Attorney, Canton (Laurie L. Paro of counsel), forrespondent.
Lahtinen, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards,J.), rendered June 12, 2006, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofattempted sexual abuse in the first degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of attempted sexual abuse in the first degree insatisfaction of a three-count indictment charging one count of sexual abuse in the first degree andtwo counts of sexual abuse in the second degree. Under the terms of the deal, he waived his rightto appeal and received a prison sentence of 2 to 4 years. Defendant appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea, which survives thewaiver of his right to appeal (see Peoplev Lee, 34 AD3d 982, 982 [2006]), was not preserved for our review since he failed tomove to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Scott, 31 AD3d 816,817 [2006]). In any event, review of the plea allocution establishes that it was entered intoknowingly, intelligently and voluntarily (see People v Mahar, 12 AD3d 715, 716 [2004]). Defendant'soutburst following the statements of two of the young victims at sentencing, during which heasserted they were lying, does not provide a basis to vacate the plea in the absence of a motionfor such relief or a clear protestation of innocence (see People v Wagoner, 30 AD3d 629, 630 [2006]).
We find no merit in defendant's argument regarding his waiver of his right to appeal. [*2]That right was explained during the allocution as a separate anddistinct right which was being waived as part of the plea bargain (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248,256 [2006]). Moreover, defendant signed a detailed written waiver of that right (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737,738 [2006]; see People v Wright, 34AD3d 940, 940 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 886 [2007]).
Defendant's waiver of the right to appeal precludes his challenge to County Court'ssuppression ruling, as well as his contention regarding whether he received the effectiveassistance of counsel (see People v Scott, 31 AD3d at 817), except as to whether hiscounsel's conduct impacted the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Crudup, 45 AD3d 1111, 1111 [2007]). And, as to suchissue, the record reflects that he received meaningful representation.
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.