| People v Lovick |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 03384 [127 AD3d 1108] |
| April 22, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Tyron Lovick, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L.Mandel, and Avshalom Yotam of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Foley, J.), rendered June 14, 2013, convicting him of robbery in the first degree andassault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his recitation of the facts underlying his plea of guilty toassault in the first degree negated the intent element of that offense (see PenalLaw § 120.10 [1]) and that the Supreme Court's further inquiry into thefacts did not cure this defect. Contrary to the People's contention, this argument was notwaived by any valid waiver of the defendant's right to appeal, because it implicates thevoluntariness of the defendant's plea (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10[1989]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]). However, the Peoplecorrectly contend that, since the court conducted a further inquiry into the facts, and sincethe defendant did not challenge this remedial action, his present contention isunpreserved for appellate review (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 668; People v Antoine, 59 AD3d560 [2009]). In any event, the contention is without merit because the defendant'sintent to cause serious physical injury (see Penal Law § 120.10 [1])can readily be inferred from the conduct to which the defendant admitted during thecourt's further inquiry into the facts and from the surrounding circumstances (see People v Ramos, 19 NY3d133 [2012]; People vSidberry, 99 AD3d 818, 818-819 [2012]; People v Moore, 89 AD3d 769, 769-770 [2011]; People v Gill, 20 AD3d434, 435 [2005]).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contentionthat the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264-267 [2011]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d248, 255-256 [2006]). Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Roman and Hinds-Radix, JJ.,concur.