| People v Robinson |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 05900 [86 AD3d 719] |
| July 14, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v BeavinRobinson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Gerald A. Dwyer of counsel), forrespondent.
Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Hoye, J.),rendered February 4, 2010, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robberyin the first degree.
In satisfaction of a multicount indictment, defendant waived his right to appeal, pleadedguilty to one count of robbery in the first degree and was sentenced as a second violent felonyoffender to the agreed-upon prison term of 18 years followed by five years of postreleasesupervision. Defendant now appeals and we affirm.
Initially, we reject defendant's assertion that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid.County Court informed defendant that his plea bargain would include a waiver of the right toappeal and adequately explained the nature of the right being waived. In addition to voicing hisunderstanding thereof, defendant, following consultation with counsel, executed a detailedwritten waiver in open court, which delineated the rights he was forfeiting and acknowledgedthat he was doing so of his own volition (see People v Jean-Francois, 82 AD3d 1366, 1366 [2011]; People v Pendelton, 81 AD3d1037, 1037-1038 [2011]; People vThomas, 81 AD3d 997, 998 [2011]). We therefore find that defendant knowingly,voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Phelan, 77 AD3d 987, 987 [2010], lv denied16 NY3d 830 [2011]; People vEmpey, 73 AD3d 1387, 1388 [2010], lv denied 15 [*2]NY3d 804 [2010]). In light of defendant's valid appeal waiver, he isnow precluded from challenging County Court's denial of his suppression motion (see People v White, 75 AD3d 837,838 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 925 [2010]; People v Cruz, 74 AD3d 1496, 1497 [2010], lv denied 15NY3d 803 [2010]; People v Perry,50 AD3d 1244, 1245 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 963 [2008]).
Finally, although defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea survives his validappeal waiver, this issue nevertheless is unpreserved for our review in light of defendant's failureto move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Richardson, 83 AD3d1290, 1291 [2011]; People vWicks, 83 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2011]; People v Willi, 80 AD3d 884, 885 [2011]). Nor is the narrowexception to the preservation requirement applicable here, as defendant did not make anystatements during his plea allocution that tended to negate a material element of the crime orotherwise cast doubt upon his guilt (see People v Richardson, 83 AD3d at 1291; People v Dishaw, 81 AD3d 1035,1037 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 858 [2011]; People v Willi, 80 AD3d at 885).
Spain, J.P., Kavanagh, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.