| People v Cannon |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 09144 [123 AD3d 1138] |
| December 31, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v LaVarr A. Cannon, Appellant. |
Jillian S. Harrington, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Judith R. Sternberg and BarbaraKornblau of counsel), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from three judgments of the Supreme Court, NassauCounty (Donnino, J.), all rendered March 11, 2013, convicting him of assault in the firstdegree and leaving the scene of an accident involving injury under indictment No.1852/11, attempted assault in the first degree, assault on a police officer, and recklessdriving under indictment No. 495/12, and tampering with physical evidence, criminalpossession of marijuana in the third degree, and unlawfully fleeing a police officer in amotor vehicle in the third degree under indictment No. 632/12, upon his pleas of guilty,and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that he knowingly,voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d737, 738 [2006]; People vLopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]; People v Arteev, 120 AD3d 1255 [2014]). The defendant'svalid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his challenge to thesuppression determinations of the hearing courts (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d831, 833 [1999]; People vVaiana, 119 AD3d 879 [2014]; People v Persaud, 118 AD3d 820 [2014]).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of hiscontention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, except to theextent that the alleged ineffective assistance affected the voluntariness of the plea (see People v Brown, 117AD3d 962 [2014]; People vMejia, 112 AD3d 855, 856 [2013]; People v Dunne, 106 AD3d 928, 928-929 [2013]). To theextent the defendant contends that the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel affectedthe voluntariness of his plea, the record reveals that he received an advantageous pleaand nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel (seePeople v Mejia, 112 AD3d at 856; People v Duah, 91 AD3d 884, 885 [2012]). Further, therecord does not support the defendant's contention that he [*2]was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel underthe federal constitution (see Hill v Lockhart, 474 US 52, 59 [1985]; People v Garrett, 68 AD3d781, 782 [2009]). Dillon, J.P., Hinds-Radix, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.