| People v Ward |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 01825 [126 AD3d 730] |
| March 4, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jardell Ward, Appellant. |
Philip H. Schnabel, Chester, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Robert H. Middlemiss ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County(Freehill, J.), rendered February 14, 2013, convicting him of criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to appeal(see People v Ramos, 7NY3d 737, 738 [2006]). Our review of the defendant's challenge to an adversesuppression ruling is precluded by his valid waiver of his right to appeal (see Peoplev Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]).
"The decision to permit a defendant to withdraw a previously entered plea of guiltyrests within the sound discretion of the court and generally will not be disturbed absentan improvident exercise of discretion" (People v Duncan, 78 AD3d 1193, 1193 [2010]; see People v Tepley, 105AD3d 977 [2013]). Here, to the extent that the defendant argues that he feltcompelled to plead guilty, this argument is at odds with statements he made under oath atthe plea proceeding, and is insufficient to warrant withdrawal of the plea, or a hearing todetermine any application to withdraw the plea (see People v Haywood 122 AD3d 769 [2014]). Althoughthe defendant further argues that his plea of guilty was invalid because he was onmedication at the time he entered it, he also indicates, in effect, that he understood theplea proceeding, and our review of the responses he gave to the County Court at the pleaand sentencing proceedings warrants the conclusion that those responses wereappropriate and did not indicate that he was incapacitated (see People v Kelly, 121 AD3d713 [2014]). Accordingly, the County Court providently exercised its discretion indenying, without a hearing, the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty.
"The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of hiscontention that the sentence imposed was excessive" (People v Morgan, 121 AD3d 1128, 1129 [2014]). Whilethe defendant's contention that the sentence imposed was illegal may be reviewed despitehis valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]), thatcontention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.