| People v Terry |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 07526 [122 AD3d 955] |
| November 6, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vDavid P. Terry, Appellant. |
Dean C. Schneller, Plattsburgh, for appellant.
Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Nicholas J. Evanovich of counsel),for respondent.
Clark, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (McGill,J.), rendered November 8, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of thecrimes of forgery in the second degree (six counts), criminal possession of a forgedinstrument in the second degree (six counts), grand larceny in the third degree (threecounts) and grand larceny in the fourth degree (three counts).
In satisfaction of two indictments charging him with numerous crimes, defendantpleaded guilty to forgery in the second degree (six counts), criminal possession of aforged instrument in the second degree (six counts), grand larceny in the third degree(three counts) and grand larceny in the fourth degree (three counts) and agreed to waivehis right to appeal. He was thereafter sentenced, as a second felony offender, to anaggregate prison term of 12 to 24 years. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Initially, upon reviewing the record, including the plea colloquy andwritten waiver of appeal, we find that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal wasinvalid. He was not advised that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from the otherrights that he was forfeiting by his guilty plea (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Patterson, 119 AD3d1157, 1158 [2014]; Peoplev Bressard, 112 AD3d 988, 988 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1137[*2][2014]). Defendant's claim that he was denied the effectiveassistance of counsel is unpreserved for our review as the record does not reflect that hemade an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Vandemark, 117 AD3d 1339, 1340 [2014],lv denied 24 NY3d 965 [2014]; People v Trombley, 115 AD3d 1114, 1114 [2014], lvdenied 23 NY3d 1068 [2014]). Further, while defendant's contention that hissentence is harsh and excessive is properly before us, we find no extraordinarycircumstances or abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interestof justice (see People vMiller, 113 AD3d 935, 936 [2014], lv denied 22 NY3d 1201 [2014]; People v Butler, 111 AD3d1024, 1025 [2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 961 [2014]).
Lahtinen, J.P., Stein, McCarthy and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.