| People v Dozier |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 01476 [115 AD3d 1001] |
| March 6, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Patrick Dozier, Also Known as Wes, Also Known as Male, AlsoKnown as Born, Appellant. |
—[*1] P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Steven M. Sharp of counsel), forrespondent.
McCarthy, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County(Breslin, J.), rendered December 4, 2009, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty ofthe crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
Defendant was charged in a 14-count indictment with various crimes relating to,among other things, the sale and possession of cocaine and heroin. In satisfaction of theindictment, he pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the seconddegree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and waivedhis right to appeal his conviction and sentence. In accordance with the plea agreement,County Court sentenced defendant to 12 years in prison and five years of postreleasesupervision on the sale count and a consecutive term of 6½ years in prison andthree years of postrelease supervision on the possession count. Defendant appeals.
Although defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea survives his waiverof the right to appeal, that claim is not preserved for our review because the record doesnot reveal [*2]that he made an appropriate postallocutionmotion (see People vBonville, 104 AD3d 1024, 1024 [2013]). While a guilty plea does not forfeitreview of the denial of a suppression motion (see CPL 710.70 [2]; People v Issac, 107 AD3d1055, 1056 [2013]), such review is foreclosed by defendant's valid waiver of theright to appeal (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; People v Stone, 105 AD3d1094, 1094-1095 [2013]). The valid appeal waiver also precludes defendant'sargument that the sentence was harsh and excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]; People v Schanz, 82 AD3d1417, 1417 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 800 [2011]).
Lahtinen, J.P., Garry and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.