| People v Steinbrecher |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 00994 [169 AD3d 1462] |
| February 8, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v LewisJ. Steinbrecher, Jr., Appellant. |
D.J. & J.A. Cirando, PLLC, Syracuse (Bradley E. Keem of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.
Gregory S. Oakes, District Attorney, Oswego (Amy L. Hallenbeck of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Oswego County (James W. McCarthy, J.),rendered September 28, 2016. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminalcontempt in the first degree (two counts).
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of twocounts of criminal contempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51 [b] [v]). The plea wasconducted by County Court, and the proceeding was later transferred to Supreme Court forsentencing. Contrary to defendant's contention, he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived hisright to appeal (see generally People vLopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). The record of the plea proceeding establishes that thecourt engaged him in "an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was aknowing and voluntary choice . . . , and informed him that the waiver was a condition ofthe plea agreement" (People v Snyder,151 AD3d 1939, 1939 [4th Dept 2017] [internal quotation marks omitted]). The valid waiver ofthe right to appeal encompasses defendant's challenges to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution(see People v Tyo, 140 AD3d 1697,1698 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1127 [2016]; People v Gardner, 101 AD3d 1634, 1634-1635 [4th Dept 2012]).Defendant's contention that the plea was involuntary because he was confused at the time of the plea,he was coerced into pleading guilty, and he was innocent survives the waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Cyganik, 154 AD3d1336, 1337 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1104 [2018]), and he preserved thatcontention for our review through his motion to withdraw the plea (see generally People vLopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]). Defendant's contention, however, is belied by his responsesduring the plea colloquy (see People vMcCullen, 162 AD3d 1661, 1661 [4th Dept 2018]). We reject defendant's related contentionthat the courts abused their discretion in denying his motion and renewed motion to withdraw the plea(see People v Haffiz, 19 NY3d 883,884 [2012]; People v Dale, 142 AD3d1287, 1289 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1144 [2017]).
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the sentencing court erred in failingto redact the presentence report (see Tyo, 140 AD3d at 1698; People v Tolliver, 55 AD3d 1302, 1302[4th Dept 2008]). Defendant made only general complaints about the report, did not set forth anyspecific arguments, and made no motion to redact the report (see Tyo, 140 AD3d at 1698).We decline to exercise our power to review defendant's contention as a matter of discretion in theinterest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]). Finally, the valid waiver of the right to appealencompasses defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Carr, 147 AD3d 1506, 1506 [4th Dept 2017], lvdenied 29 NY3d 1030 [2017]; cf.People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]; see generally Lopez, 6 NY3d at255-256). Present—Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Carni, Lindley and Troutman, JJ.