| People v Daniels |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 08381 [167 AD3d 1087] |
| December 6, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Robert Daniels, Also Known as Grand Pubar El Bey, Also Known asPubar, Appellant. |
Brian M. Quinn, Albany, for appellant.
Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H. Willis of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Sypnewski, J.),rendered January 12, 2017, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminalpossession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal facilitation in the fourth degree.
In satisfaction of a six-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree and criminal facilitation in the fourth degree and waived his right toappeal. County Court sentenced defendant in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement toan aggregate prison term of 10
Defendant's contention that the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid is without merit. Therecord reflects that County Court distinguished the waiver of the right to appeal as separate anddistinct from the rights automatically forfeited by the guilty plea, and defendant affirmed hisunderstanding of the waiver. Further, after conferring with counsel, defendant executed a writtenwaiver of the right to appeal in open court and reaffirmed that he understood the ramifications ofthe appeal waiver. Under these circumstances, we find that defendant knowingly, voluntarily andintelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 341 [2015]; People v Tucker, 164 AD3d 948,949 [2018]). As such, his challenge to the severity of the agreed-upon sentence is foreclosed (see People v Selim, 164 AD3d1576, 1576 [2018]; People vMarable, 164 AD3d 1542, 1543 [2018]; People v Saunders, 162 AD3d 1217, 1218 [2018]). Althoughdefendant's challenge to the voluntariness of the plea is not precluded by the valid appeal waiver,the issue is unpreserved for our review as the record does not reflect that defendant made anappropriate postallocution motion (seePeople v Jawan, 165 AD3d 1350, 1351 [2018]; People v Norton, 164 AD3d 1502, 1503 [2018]). Moreover, thenarrow exception to the preservation rule is inapplicable as defendant did not make anystatements during the plea colloquy that cast doubt upon his guilt or called into question thevoluntariness of his plea (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Lamb, 162 AD3d 1395,1396 [2018]).
Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Devine, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.