| People v Elliot |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 02542 [137 AD3d 715] |
| March 31, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Lawrence Elliot, Appellant. |
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Claudia Trupp ofcounsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (David P. Stromes of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa C. Jackson, J.), rendered July10, 2013, as amended July 29, 2013, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, ofpredatory sexual assault, and sentencing him to a term of 13 years to life, unanimouslyaffirmed.
Defendant's contention that his plea was rendered involuntary by the court's allegedlycoercive statements about his potential sentence is unpreserved because his remarks atsentencing neither clearly requested to withdraw the plea nor articulated the ground heraises on appeal (see People v Ali, 96 NY2d 840 [2001]; People v Tabares, 52 AD3d437 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 835 [2008]), and we decline toreview defendant's contention in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we findthat the court's reference to a probable sentence upon conviction after trial, althoughill-advised, did not render the plea involuntary (see People v Cornelio, 227 AD2d248 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 982 [1996]; see also Bordenkircher vHayes, 434 US 357, 364 [1978]).
Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, which forecloses review of hissuppression claim (see People vLopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]). The court's colloquy adequatelydescribed the waiver of his right to appeal and did not "lump[ ] it into the panoply ofrights normally forfeited upon a guilty plea" (People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 341 [2015]). Moreover,defendant signed a written waiver, which he had discussed with counsel, that adequatelysupplemented the oral colloquy (see People v Lewis, 127 AD3d 569 [1st Dept 2015], lvdenied 26 NY3d 931 [2015]). As an alternative holding, we find that defendant'ssuppression motion was properly denied for all of the reasons stated by the court.Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.