| People v Grant |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01886 [60 AD3d 1202] |
| March 19, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v MargaretGrant, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Gerald A. Dwyer of counsel), forrespondent.
Kavanagh, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Hoye,J.), rendered June 29, 2007, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime ofattempted assault in the second degree.
In full satisfaction of a three-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted assaultin the second degree and waived her right to appeal. County Court thereafter sentenceddefendant in accordance with the plea agreement to a term of imprisonment of 1½ to 3years and issued an order of protection in favor of the victim. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Although defendant's contention that her plea was not voluntarily enteredsurvives her waiver of the right to appeal, it was not preserved for our review as she failed tomove to withdraw her plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Nunez, 56 AD3d897, 898 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 928 [2009]; People v Jeske, 55 AD3d 1057, 1058 [2008], lv denied 11NY3d 898 [2008]). Moreover, the exception to the preservation rule does not apply here as shedid not make any statement during the plea that cast doubt on her guilt or negated an element ofthe crime (see People v Ramirez,45 AD3d 1108, 1108 [2007]; People v Eiffe, 34 AD3d 985, 985 [2006]). Defendant admittedduring the plea allocution that she attempted, with [*2]therequisite intent, to injure the victim with a knife (see Penal Law §§ 110.00,120.05 [2]). Contrary to defendant's contention, the lack of an admission by her that the victimsuffered a physical injury as the result of her conduct does not negate an essential element of thecrime of attempted assault (see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.05 [2]; Peoplev Munck, 190 AD2d 963, 964 [1993], lv denied 81 NY2d 974 [1993]).
Defendant's challenge to the validity of her waiver of the right to appeal is also unavailing.Inasmuch as County Court adequately explained that the right to appeal was separate and distinctfrom the rights forfeited by her guilty plea and defendant affirmed her understanding andexecuted a counseled written waiver, defendant's waiver was knowing, voluntary and intelligent(see People v Stokely, 49 AD3d966, 967-968 [2008]; People vBunce, 45 AD3d 982, 984 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 809 [2008]).
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Malone Jr. and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.