| People v Persaud |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04220 [118 AD3d 820] |
| June 11, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Goutam Persaud, Appellant. |
Joseph R. Faraguna, Sag Harbor, N.Y., for appellant.
Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Douglas Noll andAndrea M. DiGregorio of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Donnino, J.), rendered May 10, 2012, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (twocounts), robbery in the second degree, burglary in the first degree (two counts), andconspiracy in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal was valid. At the plea allocution, theSupreme Court sufficiently advised the defendant of the nature of the right to appeal, andthe record establishes that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waivedthat right (see People vRamos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; cf. People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 259-260[2011]).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of hischallenges, in effect, to the hearing court's suppression determination (see People vKemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; People v Oseni, 107 AD3d 829, 829 [2013]; People v Hackett, 93 AD3d807, 807 [2012]), and his claim that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d248, 258 [2006]; People vRivera, 97 AD3d 704, 704 [2012]).
Although a claim that a plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligentsurvives a valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1[1989]; People v Santiago,71 AD3d 703, 704 [2010]), the defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was notknowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review(see CPL 220.60 [3]; 470.05 [2]; People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726[1995]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; People v Oseni, 107AD3d at 829; People vMcKenzie, 98 AD3d 749, 750 [2012]). In any event, the contention is withoutmerit. Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.