| People v Sabo |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 03870 [117 AD3d 1089] |
| May 28, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Michael Sabo, Appellant. |
Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria, LLP, Buffalo, N.Y. (Timothy P. Murphy of counsel),for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, KeithDolan, and Arieh Schulman of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DelGuidice, J.), rendered May 21, 2012, convicting him of course of sexual conduct againsta child in the first degree and predatory sexual assault against a child, upon his plea ofguilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review an order of protectionissued at the time of sentencing.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant validly waived his right to appeal. At the plea allocution, the SupremeCourt sufficiently advised the defendant of the nature of the right to appeal, and therecord establishes that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived thatright (see People v Ramos,7 NY3d 737 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that his plea was not knowing and voluntary isunpreserved for appellate review since he failed to move to withdraw his plea (seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People vDecker, 77 AD3d 675 [2010]; People v Patel, 74 AD3d 1098, 1099 [2010]). The narrowexception to the preservation rule, which arises when the defendant's plea recitation ofthe facts underlying the crime casts significant doubt on the defendant's guilt orotherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea (see People v Lopez,71 NY2d 662 [1988]), is inapplicable in this case. In any event, the record of the pleaproceeding establishes that the plea of guilty was knowing and voluntary (see Peoplev Decker, 77 AD3d at 675; People v Patel, 74 AD3d at 1099).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contentionthat the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737 [2006]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d248, 257 [2006]; People vTarrant, 114 AD3d 710 [2014]).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improperly issued an order ofprotection pursuant to CPL 530.13 for the benefit of his children is without merit (see People v Hull, 52 AD3d962, 963 [2008]; People v Warren, 280 AD2d 75, 77 [2001]). Dillon, J.P.,Leventhal, Sgroi and Maltese, JJ., concur.