| People v Kormos |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 01832 [126 AD3d 1039] |
| March 5, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vThomas F. Kormos, Jr., Appellant. |
Linda B. Johnson, West Sand Lake, for appellant.
Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Peter N. DeLucia of counsel), forrespondent.
Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County(Cawley, J.), rendered September 13, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guiltyof the crime of attempted assault in the first degree.
Defendant was charged in a five-count indictment with, among other things,attempted murder in the second degree. The charges stemmed from a March 2011incident wherein defendant tied his wife to a bed, stuffed a sock in her throat andrepeatedly beat her. Following the denial of defendant's motion to suppress certainevidence and statements made by him to the police, the matter proceeded to trial. Duringthe course of jury selection, however, defendant elected to plead guilty—in fullsatisfaction of both the underlying and another indictment—to attempted assault inthe first degree and waived his right to appeal. Defendant thereafter was sentenced as asecond violent felony offender to the agreed-upon prison term of 10 years followed byfive years of postrelease supervision. This appeal by defendant ensued.
We affirm. The record reveals that County Court sufficiently explained the separatenature of the waiver of the right to appeal; additionally, following discussions withcounsel, defendant executed a written waiver to that effect and confirmed hisunderstanding thereof. Accordingly, we are satisfied that defendant's waiver of his rightto appeal was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Newton, 113 AD3d 1000, 1000-1001 [2014],lv denied 23 NY3d 1041 [2014]). Notably, defendant's valid waiver precludesany challenge to County Court's suppression rulings (see People v Easter, 122 AD3d 1073, 1074 [2014]; People v [*2]Guyette, 121 AD3d 1430, 1431 [2014]; People v Lewis, 118 AD3d1125, 1125 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1003 [2014]).
Although defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea survives his waiverof the right to appeal, this issue is unpreserved for our review in the absence of anappropriate postallocution motion (see People v Smith, 121 AD3d 1131, 1132 [2014], lvdenied 24 NY3d 1123 [2015]; People v Waite, 120 AD3d 1446, 1447 [2014]). Thenarrow exception to the preservation requirement was not triggered here, as defendantdid not make any statements during the plea colloquy that cast doubt upon his guilt orotherwise called into question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Banks, 122 AD3d953, 953-954 [2014]; People v Barnes, 119 AD3d 1290, 1291 [2014]), and wefind defendant's claim of coercion to be unpersuasive.
As for defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, "[d]efendant's challengesto counsel's motion practice and discovery efforts were forfeited by his guilty plea" (People v Trombley, 91 AD3d1197, 1201 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 914 [2013]). To the extent that thebalance of defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim impacts upon thevoluntariness of his plea and, hence, survives his valid appeal waiver, such claim isunpreserved for our review in the absence of an appropriate postallocution motion(see People v Guyette, 121 AD3d at 1431-1432; People v Newton, 113AD3d at 1000-1001), and reversal in the interest of justice is not warranted (see People v Gantt, 84 AD3d1642, 1643 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 858 [2011]). Defendant's remainingcontentions, to the extent not specifically addressed, have been examined and found to belacking in merit.
McCarthy, J.P., Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.