| People v Coleman |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 05600 [164 AD3d 518] |
| August 1, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Walter Coleman, Appellant. |
Gary E. Eisenberg, New City, NY, for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Bridget Rahilly Steller of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Edward T.McLoughlin, J.), rendered September 28, 2016, convicting him of attempted criminal possessionof a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waivedhis right to appeal (see People vSanders, 25 NY3d 337, 339-342 [2015]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]). The defendant'svalid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that his preplearequest to relieve assigned counsel and to substitute new counsel was improperly denied (see People v Harris, 153 AD3d552, 552-553 [2017]; People vWeston, 145 AD3d 746, 747 [2016]).
Although the defendant's contention regarding the voluntariness of his plea survives his validwaiver of the right to appeal (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]; People v Lujan, 114 AD3d 963,964 [2014]), the defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that his plea ofguilty was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent, since he did not move to withdraw his plea onthis ground prior to the imposition of sentence (see People v McClenic, 155 AD3d 1064 [2017]; People v Coachman, 154 AD3d957 [2017]). Furthermore, as the People correctly contend, the narrow exception to thepreservation rule is inapplicable in this case, as the defendant's recitation of the facts underlyinghis plea to the charged crime did not clearly cast significant doubt upon his guilt, negate anessential element of the crime, or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of his plea(see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Fuentes, 124 AD3d 677, 678 [2015]). In any event, therecord reflects that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780,780-781 [2005]; People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of hiscontention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, except to the extent thatthe alleged ineffective assistance affected the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Amay, 156 AD3d 895[2017]; People v Weston, 145 AD3d at 747). The defendant's contention that hiscounsel's conduct affected the voluntariness of his plea is belied by his statements during the pleaproceeding, in which [*2]he acknowledged under oath that he wassatisfied with his counsel's representation, that he had not been forced into pleading guilty, andthat he was entering the plea voluntarily (see People v Boria, 157 AD3d 811, 812 [2018]; People vWeston, 145 AD3d at 747; People vCobb, 19 AD3d 506 [2005]). Scheinkman, P.J., Roman, Sgroi and Maltese, JJ.,concur.