| People v Cooks |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 03564 [150 AD3d 1323] |
| May 4, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v QualonCooks, Appellant. |
Donnial K. Hinds, Albany, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Brittany L. Grome of counsel), forrespondent.
McCarthy, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Herrick, J.),rendered June 13, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery inthe second degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree in satisfaction of two indictmentsand another uncharged crime. As part of his guilty plea, he waived his right to appeal both orallyand in writing. In accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, he was sentenced to 10 yearsin prison, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
Initially, we find no merit to defendant's challenge to the validity of his waiver of the right toappeal. Our review of the record discloses that County Court explained the consequences of thewaiver and advised defendant that it was separate and distinct from the other rights that he wasforfeiting by pleading guilty. Defendant communicated his understanding and, after conferringwith counsel, signed a written waiver in open court. Accordingly, we find that the waiver wasknowing, voluntary and intelligent (seePeople v Dolberry, 147 AD3d 1149, 1150 [2017]; People v Simpson, 146 AD3d 1175, 1176 [2017]).
Although defendant's valid appeal waiver does not preclude him from contesting thevoluntariness of his guilty plea, this claim has not been preserved for our review as the record[*2]does not reveal that he made an appropriate postallocutionmotion (see People v Dolberry, 147 AD3d at 1150; People v Darrell, 145 AD3d 1316, 1317 [2016]). Moreover,inasmuch as defendant did not make any statements during the plea colloquy that cast doubt uponhis guilt, the exception to the preservation rule is inapplicable (see People v Lopez, 71NY2d 662, 665-666 [1988]; People v Darrell, 145 AD3d at 1317). Likewise, to the extentthat defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel raised in his supplemental pro se briefimpacts the voluntariness of his plea, it has also not been preserved due to the absence of apostallocution motion (see People vFairweather, 147 AD3d 1153, 1154 [2017]; People v Golgoski, 145 AD3d 1195, 1195 [2016]). Defendant'sother pro se assertions regarding counsel's alleged deficiencies are precluded by his valid appealwaiver (see People v White, 145AD3d 1324, 1325 [2016]), as is his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v McCall, 146 AD3d1156, 1157 [2017]; People vTaylor, 144 AD3d 1317, 1318 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1151 [2017]).
Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.