People v Maddaloni

2018 NY Slip Op 07793 [166 AD3d 1235]

November 15, 2018

Appellate Division, Third Department

As corrected through Wednesday, January 2, 2018

[*1]

The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Christine Maddaloni, Appellant.

Kelly M. Monroe, Albany, for appellant.

Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H. Willis of counsel), forrespondent.

Devine, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County(Sypniewski, J.), rendered July 13, 2016, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty ofthe crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree.

In satisfaction of multiple charges, defendant waived indictment and pleaded guiltyto a superior court information charging her with criminal possession of stolen propertyin the fourth degree. Pursuant to the plea agreement, defendant waived her right to appealand was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of 11/2 to3 years to be served consecutively to the undischarged sentence she was serving, and shewas ordered to pay restitution. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Defendant contends that County Court failed to elicit a sufficient guiltyplea. However, defendant waived her right to appeal. County Court distinguished thewaiver of appeal from the trial-related rights automatically forfeited by the guilty plea,ensured that defendant understood the right to appeal and ascertained that she haddiscussed the waiver with counsel and understood it prior to signing a written waiver inopen court. Under these circumstances, we find that defendant's waiver of appeal wasknowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 339-341 [2015]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d248, 256 [2006]; People vChaney, 160 AD3d 1281, 1282 [2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1146[2018]). In view of defendant's valid appeal waiver, her challenge to the sufficiency ofthe plea allocution is precluded (see People v Wood, 161 AD3d 1447, 1449 [2018];People v Chaney, 160 AD3d at 1283). Moreover, this issue was not preserved byan appropriate postallocution motion, and the narrow exception to the preservationrequirement was not triggered as defendant did not make any statements during the pleaallocution that "negated an essential element of the crime or cast doubt upon her guilt"(People v Robinson, 155AD3d 1252, 1253 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d [*2]1119 [2018]; see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Williams, 27 NY3d212, 220 [2016]; People vBlair, 140 AD3d 1478, 1479 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 927[2016]).

Garry, P.J., Lynch, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.