| People v Hudson |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 06270 [130 AD3d 1320] |
| July 23, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vMichael T. Hudson, Appellant. |
Cappy Weiner, Kingston, for appellant.
James R. Farrell, District Attorney, Monticello (Michael J. Andreani of counsel), forrespondent.
Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County(LaBuda, J.), rendered September 6, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guiltyof the crime of burglary in the second degree.
In full satisfaction of a five-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to burglary inthe second degree and waived his right to appeal. Defendant thereafter was sentenced, asan admitted second felony offender, to the agreed-upon prison term of 11 years followedby five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Initially, the record reflects that County Court adequately explained theseparate and distinct nature of the waiver of the right to appeal and that defendantthereafter executed a detailed written waiver to that effect. Accordingly, we are satisfiedthat defendant's waiver of the right to appeal his conviction and sentence was knowing,intelligent and voluntary (seePeople v Sibounhome, 125 AD3d 1059, 1059 [2015]; People v Oginski, 123 AD3d1303, 1303 [2014]).
As to the remaining arguments, to the extent that defendant's brief may be read aschallenging the voluntariness of his plea, we note that although this issue survivesdefendant's waiver of the right to appeal, it is unpreserved for our review absent evidenceof an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Kormos, 126 AD3d 1039, 1040 [2015]; People v Merrill, 123 AD3d1339, 1339-1340 [2014]), as is defendant's claim of coercion (see People v Ross, 117 AD3d1342, 1342-1343 [2014]; People v Colon, 106 AD3d 1367, 1368 [2013]). Further,although defendant initially denied knowing that his accomplices intended to burglarizethe residence in question, County Court twice adjourned the matter, following whichdefendant unequivocally admitted his guilt (see e.g. People v Rodriguez, 59 AD3d 173, 173 [2009],lv denied 12 NY3d 858 [2009]; People v Hillendale, 244 AD2d 911, 912[1997]). As such, the [*2]narrow exception to thepreservation requirement was not triggered (see People v Kormos, 126 AD3d at1040). Finally, we are not persuaded that defendant was denied the right to counsel at acritical stage of the underlying criminal action (see People v Kaetzel, 117 AD3d 1187, 1189 [2014], lvdenied 24 NY3d 962 [2014]).
Garry, J.P., Rose and Lynch, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.