| People v LaSanta |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 00865 [158 AD3d 897] |
| February 8, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jesus LaSanta, Appellant. |
Barrett D. Mack, Albany, for appellant.
D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), forrespondent.
Aarons, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.),rendered August 26, 2015, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.
In January 2015, defendant was arrested on a parole warrant at which time he was found tobe in possession of heroin and drug-related paraphernalia. As a result, defendant was charged byfelony complaint with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree,criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlledsubstance in the seventh degree. After waiving indictment, defendant, in full satisfaction of thecharges, pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him with criminal possession ofa controlled substance in the fifth degree and executed a waiver of the right to appeal. Consistentwith the terms of the plea agreement, County Court sentenced defendant, as a prior felonyoffender, to a prison term of four years to be followed by two years of postrelease supervision.Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Initially, defendant's claim that his sentence is harsh and excessive is precludedby his valid appeal waiver (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 256; People v Cuchelo, 155 AD3d1189, 1190 [2017]; People vHess, 150 AD3d 1560, 1560 [2017]). While defendant's valid appeal waiver does notpreclude his challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea, such claim is unpreserved becausethe record does not reflect that defendant made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Wallace, 150 AD3d1551, 1552 [2017]; People [*2]v McCray, 139 AD3d 1235, 1235-1236 [2016]). Moreover,our review of the record reflects that defendant did not make any statements during the pleacolloquy that cast doubt upon his guilt or negated an essential element of the crime so as totrigger the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71NY2d 662, 665-666 [1988]; People vHopper, 153 AD3d 1045, 1046-1047 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1061 [2017];People v Dejesus, 146 AD3d1077, 1078 [2017]).
Garry, P.J., McCarthy, Mulvey and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.