| People v Waite |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 06020 [120 AD3d 1446] |
| September 4, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vJames Waite Jr., Appellant. |
Erin C. Morigerato, Albany, for appellant.
Alexander Lesyk, Special Prosecutor, Norwood, for respondent.
Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County(Richards, J.), rendered September 24, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guiltyof the crime of criminal possession of marihuana in the second degree.
In full satisfaction of an indictment and other uncharged crimes, defendant pleadedguilty to criminal possession of marihuana in the second degree and waived his right toappeal. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant to two years in prison, followed byone year of postrelease supervision, to be served concurrently with the sentencedefendant already was serving. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's challenge to the validity of his appeal waiver is withoutmerit. Our review of the plea colloquy and the written waiver executed by defendantreveals that he was apprised of and understood the rights he was relinquishing, includingthe right to appeal his sentence. Accordingly, we conclude that defendant's waiver wasknowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Newton, 113 AD3d 1000, 1000-1001 [2014],lv denied 23 NY3d 1041 [2014]; People vSmith, 112 AD3d 1232, 1232 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1203 [2014]).Although defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea survives his appealwaiver, it is unpreserved for our review, inasmuch as the record does not reflect thatdefendant made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Trombley, 115AD3d 1114, 1114 [2014]). [*2]Further, the narrowexception to the preservation rule was not implicated, as defendant did not make anystatements during the plea colloquy that cast doubt upon his guilt or otherwise called intoquestion the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Bressard, 112 AD3d 988, 989 [2013], lvdenied 22 NY3d 1137 [2014]; People v Osgood, 111 AD3d 1029, 1030 [2013], lvdenied 22 NY3d 1089 [2014]). Finally, defendant's contention that his sentence isharsh and excessive is precluded by his valid appeal waiver (see People v Campbell, 114AD3d 996, 997 [2014]; People v Graves, 113 AD3d 998, 999 [2014], lvdenied 23 NY3d 1037 [2014]).
McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.