| People v West |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 08670 [123 AD3d 850] |
| December 10, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Louis K. West III, Appellant. |
Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Adam B. Levy, District Attorney, Carmel, N.Y. (David M. Bishop of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County(Rooney, J.), rendered December 11, 2013, convicting him of attempted criminal sexualact in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, andintelligently entered as a result of the alleged ineffectiveness of his trial counsel is beliedby the transcript of the plea proceeding, and the papers submitted in support of, and inopposition to, the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty (see People v Shorter, 106AD3d 1115 [2013]; Peoplev Perazzo, 65 AD3d 1058 [2009]; People v Gedin, 46 AD3d 701 [2007]; People v Gutierrez, 35 AD3d883 [2006]). During the plea proceeding, the defendant acknowledged under oaththat he was satisfied with his counsel's representation, that he had not been forced intopleading guilty, and that he was entering the plea freely and voluntarily (see People v Bennett, 115AD3d 973, 974 [2014]; People v Howard, 109 AD3d 487, 488 [2013]; People v Perez, 51 AD3d1043 [2008]). Accordingly, the County Court providently exercised its discretion indenying the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty (see People v Elmendorf, 45AD3d 858 [2007]; People vAbney, 10 AD3d 617 [2004]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, his waiver of the right to appeal wasknowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d248, 256 [2006]; People v Muniz, 91 NY2d 570, 575 [1998]; People vSeaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 11 [1989]). Since the defendant voluntarily waived his right toappeal, his claim that he was deprived of his right to effective assistance of counsel isprecluded, except to the extent that the alleged ineffective assistance may have affectedthe voluntariness of his plea (seePeople v Gomez, 114 AD3d 701, 702 [2014]; People v Montalvo, 105 AD3d774, 775 [2013]; People vRamos, 77 AD3d 773, 774 [2010]). Insofar as the defendant contends that histrial counsel's conduct affected the voluntariness of his plea, his attorney provided himwith meaningful representation (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]; People vHenry, 95 NY2d 563, 566 [2000]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147[1981]).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his claim thatthe sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255).Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Cohen and Barros, JJ., concur.