| People v Newton |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 00544 [113 AD3d 1000] |
| January 30, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vLondell Newton, Also Known as Light, Appellant. |
—[*1] P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Vincent Stark of counsel), forrespondent.
Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Herrick,J.), rendered February 23, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimeof attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
In satisfaction of a two-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to attemptedcriminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and waived his right to appeal.County Court thereafter sentenced defendant to five years in prison, to be followed bythree years of postrelease supervision. This appeal ensued.
We affirm. The record reflects that County Court distinguished the right to appealfrom the rights forfeited by the guilty plea and explained the nature of the right and theconsequences of the waiver. Additionally, defendant signed a written appeal waiver inopen court acknowledging that counsel had discussed the waiver with him and that heunderstood its ramifications. Accordingly, defendant validly waived the right to appealhis conviction and sentence (seePeople v Johnson, 106 AD3d 1331, 1332 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d1016 [2013]; People vLopez, 97 AD3d 853, 853 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1027 [2012]).
Defendant's claim that his plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary is not[*2]preserved for our review absent evidence thatdefendant moved to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, and thenarrow exception to the preservation requirement is not applicable, as defendant made nostatements during the plea allocution that cast doubt upon his guilt or negated anessential element of the crime (see People v Williams, 101 AD3d 1174, 1174 [2012]; People v DeJesus, 96 AD3d1295, 1295 [2012]). Defendant's assertion that he was denied the effective assistanceof counsel also is unpreserved for our review in the absence of an appropriatepostallocution motion (seePeople v Gruber, 108 AD3d 877, 878 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 956[2013]; People vMcGowan, 98 AD3d 1192, 1192 [2012]), and reversal in the interest of justiceis unwarranted (see People vGantt, 84 AD3d 1642, 1643 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 858 [2011]).Finally, defendant's valid appeal waiver precludes review of his contention that thesentence was harsh and excessive (see People v Ball, 108 AD3d 871, 871-872 [2013]; People v Musser, 106 AD3d1334, 1335 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 997 [2013]).
Peters, P.J., Stein and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.