| People v Bonds |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 01736 [148 AD3d 1304] |
| March 9, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v WilliamBonds, Also Known as Ice, Appellant. |
Brian M. Quinn, Albany, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H. Willis of counsel), forrespondent.
Devine, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Loyola, J.),rendered July 9, 2015, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal saleof a controlled substance in the third degree.
Defendant was charged in a four-count indictment with offenses stemming from his allegedsale of cocaine to a police informant on two occasions six days apart. He engaged in pretrialmotion practice that included, among other things, applications to suppress the informant'sidentification of him to police and place him in the Judicial Diversion Program. After that reliefwas denied, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degreein satisfaction of the indictment and waived his right to appeal. As contemplated by the pleaagreement, County Court sentenced defendant, a second felony offender, to five years in prisonand two years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Upon our review of the thorough plea colloquy and the detailed written waiverexecuted by defendant, we are satisfied that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarilywaived his right to appeal (see People vWalton, 101 AD3d 1489, 1489-1490 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1105 [2013];People v McDuffie, 89 AD3d1154, 1156 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 964 [2012]). Defendant is accordinglyprecluded from arguing that County Court erred in [*2]refusing toeither suppress identification evidence (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999];People v Flake, 95 AD3d 1371,1372 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 973 [2012]) or grant him judicial diversion (see People v Brown, 122 AD3d1006, 1007 [2014]; People vSmith, 112 AD3d 1232, 1232 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1203 [2014]).
Defendant also challenges the voluntariness of his guilty plea and, while that issue surviveshis appeal waiver, the apparent lack of an appropriate postallocution motion leaves itunpreserved for our review (see Peoplev Mann, 140 AD3d 1532, 1533 [2016]; People v White, 139 AD3d 1260, 1260 [2016]). Despite defendant'sprotestations to the contrary, nothing was said during the plea colloquy that cast doubt upon hisguilt or otherwise called into question the voluntariness of his plea so as to implicate the narrowexception to the preservation rule (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Austin, 141 AD3d 956,957 [2016]).
Defendant next contends that the indictment was jurisdictionally defective which, unlike hisspeculation that deficiencies might be found in the grand jury minutes, survives his guilty pleaand appeal waiver (see People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227, 230-231 [2000]; People v Rapp, 133 AD3d 979,979-980 [2015]). The indictment was jurisdictionally valid, however, as the count to whichdefendant pleaded guilty recited the specific section of the Penal Law under which he wascharged and did not need to specify the exact subset of cocaine he sold (see People vRapp, 133 AD3d at 980; People vMoon, 119 AD3d 1293, 1294 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1004 [2014]).
The claims advanced by defendant in his pro se supplemental brief largely echo those raisedby appellate counsel and addressed above. To the extent that they do not, we have examinedthem and found them to be without merit.
Peters, P.J., Rose and Aarons, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.