| People v Mendoza |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 06553 [153 AD3d 1364] |
| September 20, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Mark Mendoza, Appellant. |
Thomas T. Keating, Dobbs Ferry, NY, for appellant.
Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Virginia A. Marciano andSteven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County(Zuckerman, J.), rendered December 19, 2013, convicting him of burglary in the second degree(two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant validly waived his right to appeal (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337 [2015]). The defendant's validwaiver of his right to appeal forecloses appellate review of his challenge to the factual sufficiencyof his plea allocution (see People vSmith, 146 AD3d 904, 904 [2017]; People v Thompson, 143 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2016]). Further, thedefendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention thatthe sentence imposed was excessive (seePeople v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255-256 [2006]; People v Magnotta, 137 AD3d 1303, 1303 [2016]).
The defendant's contention that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent surviveshis valid appeal waiver (see People v Smith, 146 AD3d at 904; People vMagnotta, 137 AD3d at 1303). However, the defendant's contention that his plea of guiltywas not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Williams, 27 NY3d212 [2016]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the exception to the preservationrequirement does not apply here, because the defendant's plea allocution did not cast significantdoubt upon his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question thevoluntariness of the plea (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Hardman, 135 AD3d785, 786 [2016]). In any event, the record as a whole demonstrates that the defendantentered his plea of guilty knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d375, 382-383 [2015]; People vMay, 138 AD3d 1146, 1146 [2016]).
To the extent the defendant contends that he was deprived of the effective assistance ofcounsel due to counsel's failure to pursue certain pretrial motion practice, the defendant forfeitedappellate review of this claim by pleading guilty (see People v Tarrant, 114 AD3d 710, 710-711 [2014]; People v Moshier, 110 AD3d 832,833 [2013]).
[*2] The defendant's remainingcontentions are without merit. Leventhal, J.P., LaSalle, Brathwaite Nelson and Christopher, JJ.,concur.