| People v Knee |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 05566 [174 AD3d 646] |
| July 10, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Charles Knee, Appellant. |
Michael J. Annibale, Garden City, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (W. Thomas Hughes of counsel; MatthewC. Frankel on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Meryl J.Berkowitz, J.), rendered November 22, 2016, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlledsubstance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, uponhis plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was valid and enforceable. The record showsthat the defendant was sufficiently advised of the nature of the right to appeal, and that heknowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived that right (see People v Duryea, 116 AD3d 709, 710 [2014]; People v Eccleston, 113 AD3d699, 699 [2014]).
The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal does not foreclose appellate review of hiscontention that he was deprived of his right to due process when the Supreme Court failed tomake further inquiry to determine whether he violated a condition of the plea agreementrequiring that he not violate the law or be arrested for violating the law (see People v Cousar, 128 AD3d716, 716 [2015]; People vArrington, 94 AD3d 903, 903 [2012]). However, this issue is unpreserved for appellatereview because the defendant never objected to the adequacy of the inquiry conducted by thecourt and did not move to withdraw his plea (see People v Cousar, 128 AD3d at 716;People v Arrington, 94 AD3d at 903). In any event, the defendant did not deny hisinvolvement in the postplea crime or argue that there was no legitimate basis for his arrest, andthus, the court did not err in failing to conduct further inquiry into the matter (see People v Shih-Siang Shawn Liao,103 AD3d 757, 758 [2013]; Peoplev Billups, 63 AD3d 750, 750 [2009]; People v Huggins, 45 AD3d 1380, 1380 [2007]).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of hiscontention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Batista, 167 AD3d 69,73-75 [2018]; People v Baptiste,164 AD3d 1357, 1357 [2018]; People v Duryea, 116 AD3d at 710). Mastro, J.P.,Leventhal, Maltese and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.