| People v Rodriguez-Ovalles |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05798 [74 AD3d 1368] |
| June 29, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Daniel Rodriguez-Ovalles, Also Known as Daniel Rodriguez, AlsoKnown as Daniel Ovalles, Appellant. |
—[*1] Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Elizabeth L. Guinup and Andrew R.Kass of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (De Rosa, J.),rendered May 22, 2009, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree,upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his waiver of the right to appeal was not knowingly,voluntarily, and intelligently made is without merit (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248,256 [2006]). As the defendant correctly argues, a claim with respect to the voluntariness of aplea survives even a valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Elcine, 43 AD3d1176, 1177 [2007]). However, the defendant's contention that his plea was not knowing andvoluntary is unpreserved for appellate review because he failed to move to withdraw his plea ofguilty prior to sentencing (see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Marcinak, 69 AD3d654, 655 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 842 [2010]; People v Velez, 64 AD3d 799[2009]). In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant's plea of guilty was enteredknowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v Marcinak, 69 AD3d at 655).
Moreover, by pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his claims of ineffective assistance ofcounsel to the extent that they do not directly involve the bargaining process (see People vAguayo, 73 AD3d 938 [2010]; People v Perazzo, 65 AD3d 1058, 1059 [2009];People v Russell, 58 AD3d 759, 760 [2009]). To the extent that the claim can bereviewed, and involves an alleged effect on the voluntariness of his plea of guilty, the defendantwas afforded meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712[1998]).
The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his remaining contentions.Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Dickerson and Leventhal, JJ., concur.