| People v Dobbs |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 03219 [138 AD3d 1352] |
| April 28, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vDevon Dobbs, Appellant. |
Carolyn B. George, Albany, for appellant.
P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Brittany L. Grome of counsel), forrespondent.
Rose, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Breslin, J.), rendered May 2,2014 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofburglary in the second degree (two counts).
In satisfaction of a four-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to two counts ofburglary in the second degree and waived his right to appeal. County Court thereaftersentenced defendant, as a second felony offender in accord with the negotiated pleabargain, to 12 years in prison to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision.Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Although defendant argues that he was the subject of an impermissiblepolice seizure such that the evidence against him should have been suppressed, thiscontention does not survive his knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of the right toappeal (see People vCooper, 126 AD3d 1046, 1047 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 966 [2015];People v Kormos, 126AD3d 1039, 1040 [2015]; People v Hodge, 4 AD3d 676, 677 [2004], lvdenied 2 NY3d 800 [2004]). The record reveals that County Court adequatelyexplained the nature and consequences of the waiver, the fact that this aspect of his pleaagreement was separate and distinct from the other rights forfeited upon his plea ofguilty, and, upon consultation with counsel, defendant confirmed that he understood thesignificance of the rights he was waiving and executed a written waiver of his right toappeal (see People vSanders, 25 NY3d 337, 341 [2015]; People v Therrien, 134 AD3d 1231, 1232 [2015]).Moreover, he was specifically advised that his plea would effectuate a [*2]waiver of his right to consideration of any motions he hador could have made (see Peoplev Santalucia, 19 AD3d 806, 807 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 856 [2005]).Similarly, the valid waiver precludes his claim that his sentence is harsh and excessive(see People v Butler, 134AD3d 1349, 1349-1350 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 963 [ 2016]; People v Balbuena, 123 AD3d1384, 1386 [2014]).
Additionally, defendant's claim that he did not receive the effective assistance ofcounsel is precluded by his guilty plea, except to the extent that it impacts upon thevoluntariness of his plea; however, this claim is unpreserved for our review inasmuch ashe failed to make an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Clapper, 133AD3d 1037, 1038 [2015]; People v Rucker, 133 AD3d 1035, 1035-1036 [2015]).Further, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement is not applicable inasmuchas defendant made no statements during his plea colloquy that would cast doubt on thevoluntariness of his plea (seePeople v Garry, 133 AD3d 1039, 1039-1040 [2015]). Therefore, we decline todisturb the judgment of conviction.
McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Devine and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.