| People v McCall |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 00346 [146 AD3d 1156] |
| January 19, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vJowaan McCall, Also Known as J, Appellant. |
George J. Hoffman Jr., Albany, for appellant.
P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Michael C. Wetmore of counsel), forrespondent.
Garry, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Breslin, J.), renderedFebruary 11, 2015 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of thecrime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the thirddegree in full satisfaction of a three-count indictment, and the plea agreement alsoincluded the waiver of the right to appeal. Supreme Court sentenced defendant, as asecond felony offender, to 5
We affirm. Initially, we reject defendant's contention that his waiver of the right toappeal was invalid. The record discloses that Supreme Court distinguished the right toappeal from the rights automatically forfeited by a guilty plea and defendant affirmed hisunderstanding of the waiver. Defendant also signed a written waiver after conferringwith counsel regarding its contents. Accordingly, defendant's waiver of the right toappeal his conviction and sentence was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Miller, 137 AD3d1485, 1485 [2016]; Peoplev Clark, 135 AD3d 1239, 1239-1240 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 995[2016]). Defendant's valid appeal waiver precludes his claim that his sentence is harshand excessive (see People vWoods, 141 AD3d 954, 955 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1076 [2016]; People v Mann, 140 AD3d1532, 1533 [2016]).
[*2] Defendantalso claims that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered becauseSupreme Court did not inform him of the sentencing range he would be exposed to if herejected the plea offer and went to trial. We cannot say that defendant, who has a lengthycriminal record, was unaware that he could be exposed to a prison sentence if he rejectedthe plea offer and was found guilty following a trial on this indictment. In our view,defendant had ample opportunity to either raise this issue in an objection during theseproceedings or in a motion to withdraw his plea and, therefore, he was required topreserve this claim (see People vWilliams, 27 NY3d 212, 221-222 [2016]; People v Crowder, 24 NY3d 1134, 1136-1137 [2015]; People v White, 142 AD3d1254, 1255 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1128 [2016]).
Peters, P.J., Rose, Devine and Mulvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.