| People v Hluboky |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 07126 [99 AD3d 1020] |
| October 24, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Thomas J. Hluboky, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marcia R. Kucera of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Efman, J.),rendered March 31, 2011, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (two counts), burglaryin the third degree (three counts), criminal mischief in the second degree, unlawful fleeing from apolice officer in a motor vehicle in the third degree, resisting arrest, and obstructed plate, uponhis plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, intelligently, andvoluntarily made because the court failed to enumerate the constitutional rights that he waswaiving is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his plea of guiltyon this ground prior to the imposition of sentence (see CPL 220.60 [3]; 470.05 [2];People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; People v Reyes, 41 AD3d 620 [2007]; People v Wright, 34 AD3d 507[2006]; People v Mitchell, 22 AD3d769 [2005]; People v Singleton, 107 AD2d 828 [1985]). Furthermore, the narrowexception to the preservation rule, as set forth in People v Lopez (71 NY2d at 666), isinapplicable, since there is nothing in the allocution that would cast significant doubt upon thedefendant's guilt or call into question the voluntariness of the plea (see People v Lopez,71 NY2d at 666; People v Wright, 34 AD3d at 507; People v Jones, 21 AD3d 968, 969 [2005]; People v Watson, 19 AD3d 518[2005]). In any event, the defendant's contention is belied by the record.
The defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; People vMuniz, 91 NY2d 570 [1998]) precludes appellate review of his claim that he was deprived ofthe effective assistance of counsel, since the claim does not relate to the voluntariness of his plea(see People v Appling, 94 AD3d1135, 1136 [2012]; People vDuah, 91 AD3d 884 [2012]; People v Williams, 84 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2011]). Angiolillo, J.P.,Balkin, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.