| People v Shand |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 06393 [110 AD3d 745] |
| October 2, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Stephen Shand, Appellant. |
—[*1] William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Joan H. McCarthy ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County(Greller, J.), rendered June 21, 2012, convicting him of murder in the first degree andpredatory sexual assault, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, andintelligently made is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdrawhis plea of guilty prior to the imposition of sentence (see CPL 220.60 [3], 470.05[2]; People v Murray, 15NY3d 725, 726 [2010]; People v Clarke, 93 NY2d 904, 906 [1999];People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; People v Oseni, 107 AD3d 829 [2013]; People v Newson, 106 AD3d839, 840 [2013]; People vCohen, 100 AD3d 919 [2012]). Moreover, the rare exception to the preservationrequirement is inapplicable here (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 665). In anyevent, the record reveals that the defendant was properly advised of the directconsequences of the plea, and that he understood its consequences (see People v Catu, 4 NY3d242, 244-245 [2005]; People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 402-403 [1995]).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contentionthat he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that thealleged ineffective assistance affected the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Bradshaw, 18NY3d 257, 264-267 [2011]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]; People v Yarborough, 83AD3d 875 [2011]; People vCardona, 51 AD3d 941 [2008]; People v Gedin, 46 AD3d 701 [2007]). To the extent thedefendant contends that the voluntariness of his plea was affected by ineffectiveassistance of counsel, the record reveals that the defendant received the effectiveassistance of counsel (see Hill v Lockhart, 474 US 52 [1985]; Strickland vWashington, 466 US 668, 694 [1984]; People v Ford, 86 NY2d at 404).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal also precludes appellate review ofhis claim that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3dat 256; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 9 [1989]). Dillon, J.P., Leventhal,Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.