| People v Duvall |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 00197 [157 AD3d 1060] |
| January 11, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Phyllis Duvall, Appellant. |
Brian M. Callahan, Albany, for appellant.
Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Jennifer Uhl, Law Intern), forrespondent.
Devine, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Murphy, J.),rendered September 21, 2015, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime ofattempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
In satisfaction of a four-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted criminal saleof a controlled substance in the third degree and waived her right to appeal. Consistent with theterms of the plea agreement, County Court sentenced defendant to a five-year term of probation.Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant contends that her plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligentbecause County Court failed to advise her that she would be giving up her constitutionalprivilege against self-incrimination by pleading guilty. While defendant's challenge to thevoluntariness of her plea survives the unchallenged appeal waiver (see People v Bond, 146 AD3d1155, 1156 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1076 [2017]; People v Giammichele, 144 AD3d1320, 1320 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1184 [2017]), her claim is unpreserved forour review as there is no indication in the record that she made an appropriate postallocutionmotion in the ample time that she had to do so prior to sentencing (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d375, 381-382 [2015]; People vGolgoski, 145 AD3d 1195, 1195 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1184 [2017]).Moreover, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement is not applicable as defendantmade no statements during the plea colloquy that cast doubt upon her guilt or otherwise calledinto question the voluntariness of her plea (see People v Williams, 27 NY3d 212, 219-220 [2016]; People vLopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Johnson, 153 AD3d 1047, 1048 [2017]). We would, inany case, find that County Court adequately advised defendant of the [*2]trial-related rights that she was forfeiting by pleading guilty and thatshe expressed her understanding and waiver of those rights (see People v Bond, 146AD3d at 1156; People v Sommers,140 AD3d 1537, 1538 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 974 [2016]).
McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.