| People v King |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 01428 [169 AD3d 1060] |
| February 27, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JamesKing, Also Known as Christian James King, Also Known as Chris King, Also Known as Dolo,Appellant. |
Del Atwell, East Hampton, NY, for appellant.
Kevin P. Gilleece, Acting District Attorney, New City, NY (Amanda M. Doty of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (William A.Kelly, J.), rendered November 30, 2016, as amended December 7, 2016, convicting him of burglary inthe second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waivedhis right to appeal (see People v Sanders,25 NY3d 337, 340-342 [2015]; Peoplev Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]). The defendant's validwaiver of the right to appeal precludes appellate review of his challenge to the hearing court'ssuppression determination (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; People v Jessamy, 137 AD3d 1056,1056 [2016]; People v Hackett, 93AD3d 807 [2012]).
The defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal also precludes appellate review of his contentionthat he was deprived of his right to be present at or to participate in the Sandoval (seePeople v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) hearing (see People v Jessamy, 137 AD3d at1056). Moreover, the defendant forfeited that claim by pleading guilty (see People v Jessamy,137 AD3d at 1056; People v Griffin, 118AD3d 721 [2014]).
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not voluntary survives his valid waiver of theright to appeal (see People v Coachman,154 AD3d 957 [2017]; People vLujan, 114 AD3d 963, 964 [2014]). However, the defendant failed to preserve thiscontention for appellate review, since he did not move to vacate his plea or otherwise raise this issuebefore the Supreme Court (see People v Coachman, 154 AD3d at 957; People v Hutter, 154 AD3d 776[2017]). In any event, the record reflects that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily,and intelligently entered (see People vSeeber, 4 NY3d 780, 781 [2005]; People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543[1993]).
By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited appellate review of his claim of ineffective assistance ofcounsel to the extent that the claim does not directly involve the plea negotiation (see People vPetgen, 55 NY2d 529, 534-535 [1982]; People v Saliani, 163 AD3d 854 [2018]; People v Boria, 157 AD3d 811, 812[2018]). To the extent that the defendant contends that ineffective assistance of counsel affected thevoluntariness of his plea, the record demonstrates that the defendant was afforded meaningfulrepresentation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Balkin, J.P., Austin, Roman and Connolly,JJ., concur.