| People v Lobaton |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 05192 [140 AD3d 1534] |
| June 30, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v German A. Lobaton, Appellant. |
Michael C. Ross, Bloomingburg, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel),for respondent.
Clark, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams,J.), rendered October 3, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimeof burglary in the second degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the second degree in full satisfaction of a12-count indictment and waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence. CountyCourt thereafter imposed the agreed-upon sentence of 13 years in prison to be followedby five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's contention that his plea was not knowing, intelligent andvoluntary because County Court coerced him into pleading guilty is unpreserved for ourreview as the record does not indicate that he made an appropriate postallocution motion(see People v Conley, 135AD3d 1238, 1238-1239 [2016]; People v Colon, 106 AD3d 1367, 1368 [2013]). Moreover,the narrow exception to the preservation rule is not applicable here, as defendant madeno statements during the plea allocution that cast doubt upon his guilt or otherwise calledinto question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Walker, 135 AD3d 1244, 1245 [2016]; People v DeCenzo, 132 AD3d1160, 1161 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 996 [2016]). In any event, the factthat County Court informed defendant of his maximum sentence exposure does notconstitute coercive conduct (seePeople v Ross, 117 AD3d 1342, 1343 [2014]; People v Seuffert, 104 AD3d1021, 1022 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1009 [2013]), and defendantaffirmed during [*2]the allocution that he had not beencoerced or pressured into accepting a plea and was entering his plea voluntarily.
Given his valid and uncontested waiver of his right to appeal, we are precluded fromreviewing defendant's claim that his sentence is harsh and excessive (see People vConley, 135 AD3d at 1238; People v Griffin, 117 AD3d 1339, 1339 [2014]).Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, raised in his pro se submission, isbarred by his guilty plea and valid waiver of appeal (see People v Islam, 134 AD3d 1348, 1349 [2015]; People v Viele, 130 AD3d1097, 1097 [2015]). To the extent that his ineffective assistance of counsel claimimpacts the voluntariness of his plea, thereby surviving his appeal waiver, such claim isunpreserved in the absence of an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Bethea, 133AD3d 1033, 1034 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 992 [2016]; People v Guyette, 121 AD3d1430, 1431-1432 [2014], lv denied 27 NY3d 998 [2016]). Defendant'sremaining contentions, to the extent not specifically addressed herein, have beenexamined and found to be lacking in merit.
Lahtinen, J.P., Rose, Lynch and Aarons, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.