| People v Cameron |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07436 [55 AD3d 1382] |
| October 3, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Timothy Cameron,Appellant. |
—[*1] Gerald L. Stout, District Attorney, Warsaw (Vincent A. Hemming of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Wyoming County Court (Mark H. Dadd, J.), rendered September20, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the first degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in thefirst degree (Penal Law § 140.30 [2]), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appealwas invalid. We reject that contention inasmuch as the record of the plea colloquy demonstrates thatdefendant understood the terms of the plea agreement and that he knowingly, intelligently, andvoluntarily waived his right to appeal (seePeople v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Quishana M., 50 AD3d 1513 [2008]). The further contentionof defendant that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently entered is actually a challenge tothe factual sufficiency of the plea allocution, and defendant failed to preserve that contention for ourreview (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]). Indeed, although defendant states inhis brief that he filed a pro se motion to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL article 440based on several grounds, the grounds set forth in the brief do not include the alleged factualinsufficiency of the plea allocution. In any event, the valid waiver by defendant of the right to appealencompasses his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see People v Spikes, 28 AD3d 1101,1102 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 818 [2006]), as well as his challenge to the severity of thesentence (see Lopez, 6 NY3d at 256; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]).Present—Martoche, J.P., Lunn, Fahey and Pine, JJ.