| People v Perez |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04891 [51 AD3d 1043] |
| May 27, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Manolito Perez, Appellant. |
—[*1] Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Luke E. Bovill and Andrew R. Kassof counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.),rendered July 17, 2007, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a forged instrumentin the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea was coerced is unpreserved for appellate reviewbecause he did not move to vacate his plea or otherwise raise this issue before the County Court(see People v Clarke, 93 NY2d 904, 905 [1999]; People v Scoca, 38 AD3d 801[2007]; People v Lopez, 34 AD3d 599 [2006]; People v Whitaker, 27 AD3d 499[2006]). In any event, the defendant acknowledged under oath during the plea proceeding that noone had threatened, coerced, or forced him into pleading guilty, which belies his presentunelaborated claim of coercion (see People v Beasley, 50 AD3d 697 [2008]; People vGedin, 46 AD3d 701 [2007]; People v Lopez, 34 AD3d at 599; People vRobertson, 2 AD3d 756 [2003]).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his claim that he wasdenied the effective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that the alleged ineffectiveassistance affected the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Morrow, 48 AD3d 704[2008]; People v Gedin, 46 AD3d 701 [2007]; People v Dixon, 41 AD3d 861,862 [2007]). Although the defendant's allegation that counsel was ineffective because he coercedhim into pleading guilty relates to the voluntariness of his plea, it is unsupported by the recordwhich demonstrates that the plea was knowingly, voluntarily, [*2]and intelligently made (see People v Gedin, 46 AD3d at702).
The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his challenge to thesentence as excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 264 [2006]; People vMorrow, 48 AD3d at 704; People v Luster, 45 AD3d 866 [2007]). Lifson, J.P.,Ritter, Dillon and Leventhal, JJ., concur.