| People v Ferro |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08574 [101 AD3d 1243] |
| December 13, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Herbert Ferro,Appellant. |
—[*1] D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), forrespondent.
Stein, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Ceresia, J.),rendered March 25, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of course ofsexual conduct against a child in the first degree.
In satisfaction of a four-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of course ofsexual conduct against a child in the first degree. County Court sentenced him, as agreed, to aprison term of 12 years to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant nowappeals, arguing that the record does not demonstrate a knowing, voluntary and intelligent plea orwaiver of his right to appeal. We disagree and affirm.
Initially, defendant's challenge to the voluntariness and facial sufficiency of his plea is notpreserved for our review, as the record before us fails to indicate that he moved to withdraw hisplea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665-666[1988]; People v Teele, 92 AD3d972, 972 [2012]). The narrow exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here,as County Court did not "accept[ ] a plea without further inquiry after the allocution clearly cast[] significant doubt upon the defendant's guilt or otherwise call[ed] into question the voluntarinessof the plea" (People v Washington, 262 AD2d 868, 869 [1999], lv denied 93NY2d 1029 [1999]; see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666). Defendant never claimed to bewholly innocent of the charges against him, but did state during the plea colloquy that he [*2]had not engaged in the requisite two acts of sexual conduct with thevictim (see Penal Law § 130.75 [1]). County Court fulfilled its obligation toinquire further, however, ensuring that defendant had fully consulted with defense counsel andunderstood the question being posed, then eliciting his admission that he had engaged in twosuch acts (see People v Edwards, 55AD3d 1337, 1338 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 924 [2009]; People v Tavares,282 AD2d 880, 881 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 868 [2001]; People vWashington, 262 AD2d at 869-870).
Inasmuch as defendant also confirmed during the plea colloquy that he understood his appealrights and wished to waive them, then executed a detailed written appeal waiver, we furtherconclude that he validly waived his right to appeal from the conviction and sentence (see People v Lewis, 95 AD3d1442, 1443 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 998 [2012]). Contrary to defendant's claim,his assertion that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive is precluded by that waiver (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248,255 [2006]; People v Lewis, 95 AD3d at 1443).
Mercure, J.P., Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.