| People v Palladino |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 05176 [140 AD3d 1194] |
| June 29, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Brandon Palladino, Appellant. |
Thomas Theophilos, Buffalo, NY, for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Lauren Tan of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (R.Doyle, J.), rendered February 2, 2011, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree,upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, andintelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Davis, 24 NY3d1012, 1013 [2014]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; see also People v Crowder, 24NY3d 1134, 1136-1137 [2015]; People v Murray, 15 NY3d 725, 726-727 [2010]; People v Ullah, 130 AD3d759, 760 [2015]; People vBrown, 107 AD3d 819 [2013]; People v Borges, 103 AD3d 747, 748 [2013]; cf. People v Turner, 24 NY3d254, 258-259 [2014]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the exception to thepreservation requirement does not apply here, because the plea allocution did not castsignificant doubt on the defendant's guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or callinto question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Davis, 24 NY3d at 1013;People v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666).
Similarly, the defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was invalid because theSupreme Court failed to advise him of all of his constitutional rights under Boykin vAlabama (395 US 238 [1969]) is unpreserved for appellate review because he didnot move to vacate his plea prior to the imposition of sentence or otherwise raise theissue in the Supreme Court (seePeople v Murphy, 135 AD3d 881, 881 [2016]; People v Isaiah S., 130 AD3d1081, 1081-1082 [2015]).
The defendant validly waived his right to appeal (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337 [2015]). Thedefendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of hiscontention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, except to theextent that the alleged ineffective assistance affected the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Ropiza, 100AD3d 935, 936 [2012]; People v Watt, 82 AD3d 912 [2011]). Contrary to thedefendant's contention, the alleged ineffective assistance did not affect the voluntarinessof his plea (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People vWatt, 82 AD3d at 912-913). Further, the defendant's valid waiver of his right toappeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed wasexcessive (see People vDuchatellier, 138 AD3d 887 [2016]).
[*2] The defendant's nonjurisdictional challenges to theindictment and the plea proceeding were forfeited by his plea of guilty and are precludedfrom our review by his valid appeal waiver (see People v Taylor, 65 NY2d 1, 5[1985]; People v Fisher,121 AD3d 1013, 1013 [2014]; People v Skya, 43 AD3d 1190, 1190 [2007]). Leventhal,J.P., Hall, Austin and Barros, JJ., concur.