| People v Jawan |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 06834 [165 AD3d 1350] |
| October 11, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Karen L. Jawan, Appellant. |
D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (John A. Cirando of counsel), for appellant.
Gary M. Pasqua, District Attorney, Canton (Matthew L. Peabody of counsel), forrespondent.
McCarthy, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County(Champagne, J.), rendered January 31, 2017, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of thecrime of grand larceny in the second degree.
In satisfaction of multiple charges stemming from her misappropriation of approximately$269,000 from her employer, defendant waived indictment, pleaded guilty to grand larceny in thesecond degree and waived her right to appeal. County Court sentenced defendant in accordancewith the terms of the plea agreement to a prison term of 2 to 6 years. Defendant appeals.
We affirm. Contrary to defendant's contention, the record reflects that defendant was aware,prior to pleading guilty, that the waiver of the right to appeal was a condition of the pleaagreement. Regarding the waiver of the right to appeal, County Court adequately explained that itwas separate and distinct from the rights forfeited by the plea agreement and defendantacknowledged her understanding thereof. In addition, defendant executed a written appeal waiverand, upon inquiry by the court, assured the court that she had sufficient time to read thedocument and discuss it with counsel and that she understood it. As such, we find thatdefendant's appeal waiver was knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v Cayon, 158 AD3d946, 947 [2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1080 [2018]; People v Savage, 158 AD3d 854,855 [2018]).
Although the valid appeal waiver does not preclude defendant's challenge to thevoluntariness of the plea or her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to the extent that itimpacts the voluntariness of the plea, such issues are unpreserved for our review as the recorddoes not reflect that defendant made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Haverly, 161 AD3d1483, 1484 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 938 [2018]; People v Tucker, 161[*2]AD3d 1481, 1482 [2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1153[2018]; People v Edwards, 160AD3d 1280, 1281 [2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1147 [2018]). Further, the narrowexception to the preservation requirement is inapplicable as defendant made no statements duringthe plea colloquy that cast doubt on her plea of guilty or otherwise called into question thevoluntariness of the plea (see People v Haverly, 161 AD3d at 1484; People vTucker, 161 AD3d at 1482). Finally, defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentenceimposed is foreclosed by her valid appeal waiver (see People v Tucker, 161 AD3d at1482; People v Rutigliano, 159AD3d 1280, 1280 [2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1121 [2018]).
Lynch, Clark, Mulvey and Rumsey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.