| People v Carter |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00768 [59 AD3d 951] |
| February 6, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v DamariusCarter, Appellant. |
—[*1] William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (William D. Walsh, J.), renderedMarch 5, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted murderin the second degree, assault in the first degree, criminal use of a firearm in the first degree,attempted robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second 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, interalia, attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25 [1]),defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid. We reject that contention.The record of the plea colloquy demonstrates that defendant understood the terms of the pleaagreement and that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248,256 [2006]; People v Quishana M.,50 AD3d 1513 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 938 [2008]). The waiver by defendant ofhis right to appeal encompasses his challenge to County Court's suppression ruling (seePeople v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]). Although the contention of defendant that theplea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered survives his valid waiver of theright to appeal, defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review (see People v VanDeViver, 56 AD3d1118 [2008]). The further contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance ofcounsel does not survive his guilty plea or his waiver of the right to appeal inasmuch as "therewas no showing 'that the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffectiveassistance or that defendant entered the plea because of his attorney['s] allegedly poorperformance' " (People v Leonard,37 AD3d 1148, 1149 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 947 [2007]). Finally, thebargained-for sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Martoche, J.P., Fahey,Green and Pine, JJ.