| People v Griffin |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 08687 [167 AD3d 934] |
| December 19, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Christopher Griffin, Appellant. |
The Law Offices of Christopher J. Cassar, P.C., Huntington, NY, for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Alfred J. Croce of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (RichardAmbro, J.), rendered June 22, 2016, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon hisplea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant validly waived his right to appeal (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337 [2015]). The defendant's validwaiver of his right to appeal forecloses review of his challenge to the factual sufficiency of hisplea allocution (see People vMendoza, 153 AD3d 1364, 1364 [2017]; People v Smith, 146 AD3d 904, 904 [2017]; People v Thompson, 143 AD3d1007, 1008 [2016]). The defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal also precludesreview of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248,255-256 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent survivesa valid appeal waiver (see People v Mendoza, 153 AD3d at 1364; People vSmith, 146 AD3d at 904). However, the defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was notknowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Williams, 27 NY3d212 [2016]). The exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here, because thedefendant's plea allocution did not cast significant doubt upon his guilt, negate an essentialelement of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of the plea (see People vLopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Mendoza, 153 AD3d at 1365; People v Hardman, 135 AD3d785, 786 [2016]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the postplea assertions ofinnocence attributed to him in the presentence report did not call into question the voluntarinessof the plea and did not obligate the County Court to conduct any further inquiry (see People v Caceres, 155 AD3d972 [2017]; People vMaldonado, 144 AD3d 706, 707 [2016]; People v Ellis, 142 AD3d 509 [2016]; People v Axel M., 122 AD3d 946,947 [2014]). In any event, the court conducted a sufficient inquiry regarding those assertions ofinnocence, and the defendant again admitted his guilt under oath at the time of sentencing.Scheinkman, P.J., Mastro, Barros and Connolly, JJ., concur.