| People v Watson |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 01481 [115 AD3d 1016] |
| March 6, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vJamelle Watson, Appellant. |
—[*1] P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Steven M. Sharp of counsel), forrespondent.
Stein, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Breslin, J.),rendered December 8, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofrape in the third degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to rape in the third degree in satisfaction of a two-countsuperceding indictment. In accord with the plea agreement, County Court sentenceddefendant as a second felony offender to two years in prison, to be followed by 10 yearsof postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Initially, we agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appealwas not valid, inasmuch as the record does not establish that defendant understood thathis right to appeal was separate and apart from those rights that are automaticallyforfeited upon his guilty plea (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264-265 [2011]; People v Pimentel, 108 AD3d861, 862 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1076 [2013]; People v Ladieu, 105 AD3d1265, 1265 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1017 [2013]; People v White, 104 AD3d1056, 1056 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1018 [2013]; People v Veras, 103 AD3d984, 985 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 947 [2013]). We next find thatdefendant's challenge to the factual sufficiency and voluntariness of his plea is notpreserved for our review, as there is no indication in the record that he made the [*2]appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Moses, 110AD3d 1118, 1118 [2013]; People v Hasenflue, 110 AD3d 1108, 1108 [2013]; People v Straub, 92 AD3d1028, 1028 [2012]). Moreover, inasmuch as defendant did not make any statementsduring the proceedings that cast doubt on his guilt or otherwise called into question thevoluntariness of his plea, the narrow exception to the preservation rule is not applicablehere (see People v Hare,110 AD3d 1117, 1117 [2013]; People v Secore, 102 AD3d 1059, 1060 [2013], lvdenied 21 NY3d 1019 [2013]).
Finally, defendant's sentence was not harsh or excessive. Notwithstanding the factthat County Court imposed the maximum possible term of postrelease supervision, whenwe consider defendant's criminal history, his failure to accept responsibility for hisactions and the record as a whole, we perceive no extraordinary circumstances or abuseof discretion that would warrant this Court's intervention (see People v Coutant, 111AD3d 981, 983 [2013]; People v Jaeger, 96 AD3d 1172, 1173 [2012], lvdenied 19 NY3d 997 [2012]).
Peters, P.J., Lahtinen and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.