| People v Brown |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 09204 [156 AD3d 1248] |
| December 28, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Alex Brown, Appellant. |
Stephen W. Herrick, Public Defender, Albany (Theresa M. Suozzi of counsel), forappellant.
P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Vincent Stark of counsel), for respondent.
Rumsey, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Lynch, J.),rendered August 11, 2015, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery inthe first degree.
Defendant waived indictment and agreed to be prosecuted by a superior court informationcharging him with robbery in the first degree. He pleaded guilty to this crime and waived hisright to appeal, both orally and in writing. He was sentenced, in accordance with the terms of theplea agreement, to 10 years in prison and five years of postrelease supervision. He nowappeals.
Initially, we note that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is valid. County Courtexplained that the right to appeal was distinct from the trial-related rights forfeited by the guiltyplea, and the record further reflects that defendant, after discussion with defense counsel,executed a written appeal waiver in open court and acknowledged that he understood it (see People v Baxter, 154 AD3d1010, 1011 [2017]; People vHess, 150 AD3d 1560, 1560 [2017]; People v Pixley, 150 AD3d 1555, 1556-1557 [2017], lvdenied 30 NY3d 952 [2017]; Peoplev White, 145 AD3d 1324, 1324-1325 [2016]). The valid appeal waiver precludesdefendant's challenge to the severity of his sentence (see People v Hess, 150 AD3d at1560; People v White, 145 AD3d at 1324-1325).
Although defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal does not preclude his claim that hisguilty plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent, this claim has not been preserved for ourreview as the record does not reveal that he made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Dubois, 150 AD3d1562, 1563 [2017]; People vCooks, 150 AD3d 1323, 1324 [2017]). [*2]Moreover,the narrow exception to the preservation requirement is inapplicable as defendant did not makeany statements during the plea colloquy that cast doubt upon his guilt or otherwise called intoquestion the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Dubois, 150 AD3d at 1563;People v Cooks, 150 AD3d at 1324).
McCarthy, J.P., Rose, Devine and Mulvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.