| People v Golgoski |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 08259 [145 AD3d 1195] |
| December 8, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vPeter N. Golgoski, Appellant. |
Salvatore C. Adamo, Albany, for appellant.
Jason J. Kovacs, Special Prosecutor, Kingston, for respondent.
Devine, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams,J.), rendered June 20, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofcriminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
In satisfaction of a six-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale ofa controlled substance in the third degree and waived his right to appeal from theconviction and sentence. County Court imposed upon defendant, a second felonyoffender, the agreed-upon sentence of six years in prison to be followed by three years ofpostrelease supervision. Defendant appeals, and we now affirm.
Defendant first contends that his plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntarybecause County Court failed to advise him of the trial-related rights he was forfeiting bypleading guilty (see People vTyrell, 22 NY3d 359, 361 [2013]). Defendant did not advance this issue in anappropriate postallocution motion, despite having had sufficient opportunity to do so,and it is accordingly unpreserved for our review (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375, 381-382 [2015]; People v Forest, 141 AD3d967, 968 [2016]). The record, in any event, "shows that defendant was fully advisedof his trial-related rights during the allocution" (People v Sommers, 140 AD3d 1537, 1538 [2016], lvdenied 28 NY3d 974 [2016]; see People v Walker, 135 AD3d 1244, 1245-1246[2016]).
Defendant's further challenge to the validity of his appeal waiver is unavailing.County Court explained the right to appeal to defendant and distinguished it from therights he was giving up by pleading guilty, all of which defendant confirmed that heunderstood. He then reviewed a detailed written waiver with counsel and signed it inopen court. Defendant's appeal waiver was therefore a knowing, intelligent and voluntaryone (see People v Sanders,25 NY3d 337, 340-341 [2015]; People v Sommers, 140 AD3d at 1538).
Defendant's remaining claims are not properly before us. The assertion thatdefendant received the ineffective assistance of counsel, to the extent that it survives hisguilty plea and appeal waiver, is unpreserved given the lack of an appropriatepostallocution motion (seePeople v Lobaton, 140 AD3d 1534, 1535 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d972 [2016]; People vJohnson, 54 AD3d 1133, 1134 [2008]). By pleading guilty, defendant waivedhis contention that County Court erred in denying his motion to disqualify the specialprosecutor (see People vAbdullah, 122 AD3d 958, 959 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1218 [2015];People v Gryner, 116 AD3d1247, 1248 [2014]). Lastly, defendant's protestation that the agreed-upon sentencewas harsh and excessive is precluded by his valid appeal waiver (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d248, 256 [2006]; People vConstantopoules, 141 AD3d 942, 943 [2016]).
Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose and Mulvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.