| People v Mejia |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 08462 [112 AD3d 855] |
| December 18, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ramiro Alonzo Mejia, Appellant. |
—[*1] Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Steven A. Bender and RichardLongworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County(Molea, J.), rendered May 12, 2011, convicting him of arson in the second degree, 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, voluntarily, andintelligently made is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdrawhis plea on this ground prior to the imposition of sentence (see CPL 220.60 [3];470.05 [2]; People v Clarke, 93 NY2d 904, 906 [1999]; People v Cullum, 93 AD3d856 [2012]; People vHayes, 91 AD3d 792 [2012]; People v Kulmatycski, 83 AD3d 734 [2011]). Furthermore,the "rare case" exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because thedefendant's allocution did not cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essentialelement of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of his plea (People vLopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; see People v McNair, 13 NY3d 821, 822 [2009]; People v Soria, 99 AD3d1027, 1027 [2012]; Peoplev Young, 88 AD3d 918, 918 [2011]). In any event, the record reflects that theplea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780, 780-781 [2005];People v Alexander, 97 NY2d 482, 485 [2002]; People v Harris, 61NY2d 9 [1983]).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of hiscontention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, except to theextent that the alleged ineffective assistance affected the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Ropiza, 100AD3d 935 [2012]; People vWatt, 82 AD3d 912 [2011]; People v Aguayo, 73 AD3d 938, 939 [2010]). To theextent the defendant claims that the alleged ineffective assistance affected thevoluntariness of his plea, the record reveals that he received an advantageous plea andnothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel (see Peoplev Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137,146-147 [1981]; People v Aguayo, 73 AD3d at 939; People v Hughes, 62 AD3d1026 [2009]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit (see People v Eun Sil Jang, 17AD3d 693, 694 [2005]). Angiolillo, J.P., Balkin, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.