| People v White |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 05567 [119 AD3d 1286] |
| July 31, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| 1 The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vOmar White, Appellant. |
M. Joe Landry, Schenectady, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
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(Drago, J.), rendered January 28, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty ofthe crime of robbery in the second degree.
In full satisfaction of a 37-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to robbery inthe second degree and waived his right to appeal. Prior to sentencing, defendant sent aletter to County Court expressing his desire to withdraw his plea—contending thatdefense counsel had pressured him into pleading guilty and that he had not beenprovided with meaningful representation. Following a colloquy with defendant, CountyCourt denied his request and thereafter sentenced him, as a second felony offender, to 12years in prison, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision, and he wasordered to pay restitution. Defendant appeals.
We affirm. Contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that he made a validwaiver of the right to appeal, as the plea allocution and signed written waiverdemonstrate that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right toappeal his conviction and sentence (see People v Torres, 110 AD3d 1119, 1119 [2013], lvdenied 22 NY3d 1044 [2013]; People v Marshall, 108 AD3d 884, 884 [2013], lvdenied 22 NY3d 957 [2013]). Furthermore, his valid waiver of the right to appealprecludes his claim that the sentence imposed is harsh and excessive (see People v Fling, 112 AD3d1001, 1002 [2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 1020 [2014]; [*2]People v Passino, 104 AD3d 1060, 1061 [2013],lv denied 22 NY3d 1157 [2014]).
Defendant further argues that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently andvoluntarily entered due to the fact that, while he was informed at the time of his plea thata period of postrelease supervision would be imposed, he was unaware of its duration.However, inasmuch as defendant was advised by County Court at the outset of thesentencing proceeding that his sentence would include five years of postreleasesupervision and he did not raise this issue, his challenge to the voluntariness of his plea isnot preserved for our review (see People v Murray, 15 NY3d 725, 726-727 [2010]; People v Lee, 80 AD3d1072, 1073 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 832 [2011]). Finally, defendant'sclaim that the amount of restitution ordered is not supported by the record is alsounpreserved for our review in light of his failure to request a restitution hearing orotherwise contest the amount of the award at sentencing (see People v Bressard, 112AD3d 988, 989 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1137 [2014]; People v Empey, 73 AD3d1387, 1389 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 804 [2010]). In any event, the victimimpact statement contained adequate support for the amount ordered (see People v Thomas, 71 AD3d1231, 1232 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 893 [2010]).
Rose, Egan Jr., Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.