| People v Lewis |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04265 [118 AD3d 1125] |
| June 12, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vRichard Lewis, Appellant. |
Linda B. Johnson, West Sand Lake, for appellant.
Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Gerald A. Dwyer of counsel), forrespondent.
Peters, P.J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County(Hoye, J.), rendered December 6, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty ofthe crime of attempted robbery in the second degree.
In full satisfaction of a 15-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to attemptedrobbery in the second degree and waived his right to appeal. He was sentenced, inaccordance with the plea agreement, to three years in prison followed by two years ofpostrelease supervision. He appeals.
We reject defendant's contention that his waiver of the right to appeal was notknowing, voluntary and intelligent. County Court separately explained the right toappeal, distinguished that right from those forfeited by pleading guilty, and inquired as towhether defendant understood that he was waiving this particular right as part of the pleabargain. Defendant answered in the affirmative and confirmed his understanding of theconsequences of the waiver. He also executed a detailed written waiver in open courtacknowledging, among other things, that he had discussed the waiver with counsel andthat he was knowingly and voluntarily waiving his right to appeal from all aspects of theconviction and sentence, including any preplea rulings. Accordingly, we conclude thatdefendant's appeal waiver was valid (see People v Brown, 115 AD3d 1115, 1115 [2014]; People v Torres, 110 AD3d1119, 1119 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1044 [2013]; People v Marshall, 108 AD3d884, 884 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013]), [*2]thereby precluding his challenge to County Court's denialof his suppression motion (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; People v Morrison, 106 AD3d1201, 1202 [2013]; Peoplev Stone, 105 AD3d 1094, 1094-1095 [2013]).
Defendant asserts that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent andthat he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, yet the record does not indicatethat he made an appropriate postallocution motion. As such, these issues have not beenpreserved for our review (seePeople v Trombley, 115 AD3d 1114, 1114 [2014]; People v Ladieu, 105 AD3d1265, 1265-1266 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1017 [2013]; People v Doe, 95 AD3d1449, 1449 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 995 [2012]). Further, with respect tothe plea, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement was not triggered hereinasmuch as defendant did not make any statements during the plea allocution thatnegated a material element of the crime or otherwise raised any doubt as to his guilt(see id.). In any event, were we to consider these contentions, we would findthem to be without merit.
Stein, Garry, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.