| People v Henriquez |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 00303 [168 AD3d 876] |
| January 16, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Misael Henriquez, Appellant. |
Jillian S. Harrington, Staten Island, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Yael V. Levy of counsel; Matthew C.Frankel on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robert G.Bogle, J.), rendered November 20, 2017, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlledsubstance in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was charged with one count of criminal possession of a controlled substancein the fourth degree. On September 20, 2017, he pleaded guilty to the charged offense inexchange for a promised sentence of, inter alia, three years' probation. As part of the pleaagreement, the defendant was asked to waive his right to appeal.
On appeal, the defendant challenges the validity of the appeal waiver and contends that hisplea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because the Supreme Court never informed himof the possible consequences of a violation of probation.
As a threshold matter, we need not decide whether the defendant's appeal waiver is valid,since his only other contention concerns the voluntariness of his plea—a question thatsurvives even a valid appeal waiver (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]).
The defendant never moved before the sentencing court to withdraw his plea of guilty,despite having had an opportunity to do so (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Pastor, 28 NY3d 1089,1090 [2016]), and nothing in the plea minutes casts significant doubt upon the defendant's guilt(see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]). Therefore, his contention that the pleawas not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Sulaiman, 134 AD3d860, 861 [2015]; People vSabo, 117 AD3d 1089 [2014]). In any event, the contention is without merit (cf. People v Monk, 21 NY3d 27[2013]). Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.