| People v Putman |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 00930 [169 AD3d 1114] |
| February 7, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Michael R. Putman, Appellant. |
John J. Raspante, Utica, for appellant.
William G. Gabor, District Attorney, Wampsville (Elizabeth S. Healy of counsel), forrespondent.
Egan Jr., J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Madison County (McDermott, J.),rendered June 25, 2015, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in thesecond degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree in full satisfaction of an 11-countindictment and waived the right to appeal. He was thereafter sentenced, as a second felony offender, tothe agreed-upon term of imprisonment of nine years, to be followed by five years of postreleasesupervision, with the sentence to run concurrently with the sentence defendant was already serving.Defendant appeals.
We affirm. Defendant contends that both the waiver of the right to appeal and his guilty plea werenot entered into knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. Initially, whether defendant's appeal waiver wasknowing, intelligent and voluntary is of no consequence because defendant's challenge to thevoluntariness of his guilty plea survives a valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Simon, 166 AD3d 1075,1076 [2018]; People v Howe, 150AD3d 1321, 1322-1323 [2017]). Although defendant's claim that his plea was involuntarybecause it was coerced survives an appeal waiver, the claim has not been preserved for our review asthe record does not reflect that he made an appropriate postallocution motion (see CPL 220.60[3]; People v Robinson, 161 AD3d1218, 1219 [2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1152 [2018]; People v Rutigliano, 159 AD3d 1280,1280 [2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1121 [2018]). Moreover, the narrow exception to thepreservation rule is inapplicable as defendant did not make any statements during the plea colloquy orsentencing proceeding that cast doubt upon his guilt, negated an element of the crime or called intoquestion the voluntariness of his plea (seePeople v Tucker, 164 AD3d 948, 950 [2018]; People v Kruppenbacher, 163 AD3d 1266, 1267 [2018], lvdenied 32 NY3d 1065 [2018]). In any event, were the issue before us, we would find thatdefendant's plea did not result from coercion and was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarilyentered.
Lynch, Aarons, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.