| People v Humbach |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 06084 [153 AD3d 637] |
| August 9, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Miriam Humbach, Appellant. |
Joseph W. Carbonaro, Bronxville, NY, for appellant.
Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Laurie Sapakoff, StevenBender, and James Tobin of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County(Zambelli, J.), rendered June 10, 2014, convicting her of criminal contempt in the first degreeand criminal contempt in the second degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, she knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waivedher right to appeal (see People vSanders, 25 NY3d 337, 339-340 [2015]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Brown, 122 AD3d 133,142 [2014]; People v Ramsey, 116AD3d 717, 717 [2014]).
The defendant's waiver of her right to appeal does not foreclose review of her contention thatthe County Court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry to determine whether she violated apresentence condition of her plea agreement when she was arrested for a new crime and whetherthere was a legitimate basis for that arrest, or her further contention that the court improperlyconducted a portion of that inquiry outside of her presence (see People v Perez, 140 AD3d 799, 799 [2016]; People v Cousar, 128 AD3d 716,716 [2015]; People v Arrington, 94AD3d 903, 903 [2012]). However, the defendant failed to preserve these issues for appellatereview, since she did not request a hearing, object to the adequacy of the inquiry conducted bythe court, object to the procedure employed by the court, or move to withdraw her plea of guilty(see CPL 470.05 [2]; People vReynolds, 27 NY3d 1099, 1101 [2016]; People v Douglas, 94 NY2d 807, 808[1999]; People v Cousar, 128 AD3d at 716; People v Ali O., 115 AD3d 1353, 1353-1354 [2014]; People v Stafford, 115 AD3d 683,683 [2014]; People v Miles, 268 AD2d 489, 490 [2000]). The defendant's failure to raisethese contentions before the County Court deprived both the People and the court of theopportunity to address and remedy the alleged errors. Under the circumstances, we decline toreview these contentions in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see generally People v Chatman, 14AD3d 620, 620 [2005]; People v Brooks, 217 AD2d 492, 492 [1995]; People vPrescott, 191 AD2d 521 [1993]).
The defendant's contention that her plea of guilty was not voluntary also survives her waiverof the right to appeal (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]; People v Espejo, 145 AD3d 1031,1031-1032 [2016]). However, the defendant failed to preserve this contention for appellatereview since she did not move to withdraw her plea on this ground prior to the imposition ofsentence (see [*2]CPL 220.60 [3]; People vClarke, 93 NY2d 904, 906 [1999]; People v Spencer, 149 AD3d 983 [2017]). Under thecircumstances, we decline to review this issue in the exercise of our interest of justicejurisdiction.
Finally, since the defendant was informed of the maximum sentence that could be imposed ifshe failed to comply with the conditions of her interim probation, the valid waiver of her right toappeal encompasses her claim that the enhanced sentence was excessive (see People vLococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; People v Perez, 140 AD3d 799, 800 [2016]). Mastro, J.P.,Leventhal, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.