| People v Magnotta |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 02379 [137 AD3d 1303] |
| March 30, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Maurizio Magnotta, Appellant. |
John P. Savoca, Yorktown Heights, NY, for appellant.
Robert Tendy, District Attorney, Carmel, NY (David M. Bishop of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County(Rooney, J.), rendered December 7, 2011, convicting him of criminal sexual act in thefirst degree and burglary in the third degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that he knowingly,voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d337 [2015]). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellatereview of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d248, 255-256 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligentsurvives his valid appeal waiver (see People v Fontanet, 126 AD3d 723 [2015]). However,the defendant failed to preserve this contention for appellate review, since he did notmove to withdraw the plea (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 [1988]; People v Narbonne, 131 AD3d626, 627 [2015]). In any event, the defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly,voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536,543 [1993]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record of the plea proceedingreveals that he was adequately apprised of the constitutional rights forfeited by his pleaof guilty (see People vPollidore, 123 AD3d 1058, 1059 [2014]).
The defendant's contention that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, andintelligently entered because the County Court did not adequately inform him of theconsequences of his plea on a determination pursuant to the Sex Offender RegistrationAct (see Correction Law art 6-C) is unpreserved for appellate review, since hedid not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise this issue before the court and, inany event, the contention is without merit (see People v Gravino, 14 NY3d 546, 550 [2010]; People v Holcombe, 116 AD3d1063, 1064 [2014]).
To the extent the defendant claims that the voluntariness of his plea was hindered bythe ineffective assistance of his counsel, the defendant was afforded meaningfulrepresentation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Rodriguez-Ovalles,74 AD3d 1368 [2010]).
[*2] By pleadingguilty, the defendant forfeited judicial review of his contentions that the grand juryproceeding was rendered defective by the presentation of charges arising from twoseparate incidents and by the improper introduction of certain evidence (see People vHansen, 95 NY2d 227, 231 [2000]; People v Visconti, 96 AD3d 979 [2012]; People v Ortiz, 84 AD3d839, 840 [2011]), and that the evidence submitted to the grand jury was insufficientto support the indictment (seePeople v O'Connor, 136 AD3d 945 [2016]; People v Woods, 115 AD3d 997, 998 [2014]). Hall, J.P.,Austin, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.