| People v Reinhardt |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02169 [82 AD3d 1592] |
| March 25, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v ChristopherReinhardt, Appellant. |
—[*1] Donald H. Dodd, District Attorney, Oswego (Michael G. Cianfarano of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Oswego County Court (Walter W. Hafner, Jr., J.), renderedOctober 5, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the third 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 criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [12]),defendant contends that he did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive his right toappeal because his responses to questioning by County Court in connection with the waiver weremonosyllabic. He further contends that the court's characterization of the right to appeal was"confusing" and inadequate. We reject defendant's contention and instead conclude that hevalidly waived the right to appeal (seePeople v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). Defendant failed to preserve for our reviewhis challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution by failing to move to withdraw theplea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665[1988]), and this case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement(see id. at 666). Defendant's challenge to the court's suppression ruling is encompassedby his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999];People v McKeon, 78 AD3d1617 [2010]). We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that theyare without merit. Present—Centra, J.P., Carni, Lindley, Green and Gorski, JJ.