| People v Daniels |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 08382 [167 AD3d 1088] |
| December 6, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Robert J. Daniels, Appellant. |
Brian M. Quinn, Albany, for appellant.
Karen A. Heggen, District Attorney, Ballston Spa (Gordon W. Eddy of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Murphy III, J.), renderedSeptember 7, 2016, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminalpossession of a weapon in the third degree.
A police officer ordered defendant and two other individuals to get out of a parked vehicleafter noticing a plastic bag containing marihuana lying in plain view on the rear seat. Defendantcomplied and was then frisked by the officer, who discovered a switchblade in defendant's frontpocket. As a result, defendant was charged in an indictment with criminal possession of aweapon in the third degree. Following a Huntley/Mapp hearing, defendant's motion tosuppress certain statements that he made to the police and physical evidence seized during thesearch was denied. He subsequently pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in thethird degree and waived his right to appeal, both orally and in writing. In accordance with theterms of the plea agreement, he was sentenced to 1 to 3 years in prison, to run concurrently with apreviously imposed federal sentence. Defendant appeals.
Initially, defendant's claim that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent hasnot been preserved for our review as the record does not disclose that he made an appropriatepostallocution motion (see People vNorton, 164 AD3d 1502, 1503 [2018]; People v Williams, 163 AD3d 1172, 1173 [2018], lv denied32 NY3d 1009 [2018]). Moreover, the narrow exception to the preservation rule is inapplicableas defendant did not make any statements during the plea colloquy that cast doubt upon his guiltor called into question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662,666 [1988]; People v Lamb, 162AD3d 1395, 1396 [2018]). Insofar as defendant seeks to challenge the validity of thesuppression ruling, he is precluded from doing so by his knowing, voluntary and intelligentwaiver of the right to appeal, which specifically encompassed adverse rulings made on pretrialmotions (see People v Sanders, 25NY3d 337, 342 [2015]; People vZippo, 136 AD3d 1222, 1222 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1141 [2016]).Defendant's valid appeal waiver forecloses not only his challenge to the suppression ruling, butalso his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Williams, 163 AD3d at1173; People v Dobbs, 157 AD3d1122, 1123 [2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 983 [2018]).
Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Mulvey and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.