| People v Hyland |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 08455 [123 AD3d 736] |
| December 3, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Terrence Hyland, Appellant. |
Virginia Boccio, Farmingdale, N.Y., for appellant.
Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Ilisa T. Fleischer andRebecca L. Abensur of counsel; Jason D. Kleiger on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Ayres, J.), rendered October 2, 2009, convicting him of attempted assault in the seconddegree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The record of the plea proceeding demonstrates that the defendant received "[an]explanation of the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving thatright" (People v Brown, 122AD3d 133, 144 [2014]). Under the circumstances, which include consideration ofthe defendant's individual characteristics, we conclude that the defendant knowingly,voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see generally People vBradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264-267 [2011]; People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d248, 255 [2006]; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 735 [1998]).Accordingly, to the extent that the defendant challenges the factual sufficiency of his pleaallocution, the valid appeal waiver precludes review of that contention (see People v King, 115 AD3d986, 987 [2014]; People vReina, 35 AD3d 509, 509-510 [2006]; People v Mydosh, 27 AD3d 580, 580 [2006]; People v Curras, 1 AD3d445, 446 [2003]).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying his motion towithdraw his plea since it was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently madesurvives the valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Lofton, 115 AD3d 989, 989 [2014]; People v Persaud, 109 AD3d626, 626 [2013]; People vMorrow, 48 AD3d 704, 705 [2008]; see also People v Callahan, 80NY2d 273, 280 [1992]). However, contrary to the defendant's contention, the recorddemonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently pleaded guiltyand, under the circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion indenying his pro se motion to withdraw his plea (see People v Griffith, 78 AD3d 1194, 1195 [2010]; People v Gully, 17 AD3d382, 382 [2005]; People v Telfair, 299 AD2d 429, 429 [2002]; People vPotter, 294 AD2d 603, 604 [2002]). Dillon, J.P., Miller, Maltese and Duffy, JJ.,concur.