| People v Williams |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 04169 [150 AD3d 1549] |
| May 25, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v KareemWilliams, Appellant. |
Barrett D. Mack, Albany, for appellant.
Joseph Stanzione, District Attorney, Catskill (Danielle D. McIntosh of counsel), forrespondent.
Garry, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Greene County (Tailleur, J.),rendered June 10, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal saleof a controlled substance in the third degree.
In satisfaction of a six-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of acontrolled substance in the third degree and waived his right to appeal. County Court thereaftersentenced defendant, as a second felony drug offender, to a prison term of 10 years, to befollowed by three years of postrelease supervision, to be served concurrently with the sentencethat defendant was already serving. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's challenge to County Court's denial of his request for a Wadehearing is precluded by his unchallenged waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Walton, 101 AD3d1489, 1490 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1105 [2013]; People v Barrier, 7 AD3d 885, 886[2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 670 [2004]). His claim that his plea was not voluntarily enteredbecause it was coerced survives his appeal waiver, but is unpreserved for our review, as therecord does not reflect that he made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Lobaton, 140 AD3d1534, 1535 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 972 [2016]; People v Conley, 135 AD3d 1238,1238-1239 [2016]). Moreover, the narrow exception to the preservation rule is not applicable, asdefendant made no statements during the plea colloquy that cast doubt upon his guilt orotherwise called into question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d662, 665-666 [1988]; People vForest, 141 AD3d 967, 968-969 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1145[*2][2017]).
Defendant also claims that he was denied due process on the ground that his plea wasinvoluntary because he was not advised at the time of the plea that it would result in his driver'slicense being suspended for six months. The record reflects that defendant was advised of thesuspension of his driver's license at the sentencing hearing, prior to the imposition of thesentence. Defendant was thus provided an opportunity to challenge the voluntariness of his pleain this regard, but failed to do so. Accordingly, this issue is also unpreserved for our review (see People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168,182-183 [2013]; People v Murray,15 NY3d 725, 726-727 [2010]; People v Garraway, 144 AD3d 703, 703 [2016]; People v Gerald, 103 AD3d 1249,1250 [2013]). In any event, the suspension of his driver's license was a collateral consequence ofdefendant's guilty plea and the failure to disclose this consequence during the plea colloquy doesnot warrant vacatur of the plea (see People v Peque, 22 NY3d at 184-185; People vFord, 86 NY2d 397, 403 [1995]; People v Garraway, 144 AD3d at 703; People vGerald, 103 AD3d at 1250).
Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel survives his appeal waiver, insofar asthe alleged ineffective assistance impacts the voluntariness of plea, but is also unpreserved forour review for lack of an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Cox, 146 AD3d 1154, 1154-1155 [2017]; People v Macon, 142 AD3d 739,739 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1073 [2016]). To the extent that defendant's ineffectiveassistance of counsel claim involves matters outside of the record, it is more properly pursued ina motion pursuant to CPL article 440 (see People v Lewis, 143 AD3d 1183, 1185 [2016]; People v Pickett, 128 AD3d 1275,1276 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 930 [2015]). Finally, defendant's contention that he wasimproperly sentenced as a second felony drug offender because County Court violated CPL400.21 (3) by failing to give him an opportunity to contest the allegations contained in the priorfelony information is unpreserved for our review as he failed to object at sentencing (see People v Shelmandine, 128 AD3d1180, 1180-1181 [2015]; People vHouse, 119 AD3d 1289, 1290 [2014]). In any event, the record reflects that CountyCourt substantially complied with the statutory requirements (see People v Shelmandine,128 AD3d at 1181; People v Walton, 101 AD3d at 1490).
Lynch, Rose, Clark and Aarons, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.