| People v Ringler |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 09032 [178 AD3d 959] |
| December 18, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jermaine D. Ringler, Appellant. |
Thomas N.N. Angell, Poughkeepsie, NY (Steven Levine of counsel), for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Edward T.McLoughlin, J.), rendered September 13, 2017, convicting him of burglary in the first degree,upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that he knowingly,voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337 [2015]; People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257[2011]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d248 [2006]). The defendant's valid appeal waiver precludes appellate review of his challengeto the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution (see People v Contreras, 170 AD3d 1034, 1035 [2019]; People v Griffin, 167 AD3d 934[2018]; People v Hutter, 154 AD3d776 [2017]).
Although a claim that a plea of guilty was not voluntary survives a valid waiver of the rightto appeal (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]; People v Contreras, 170AD3d at 1035), the defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that his pleaof guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, since he did not move to withdraw his pleaor otherwise raise this issue before the County Court (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People vToxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]).Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, the exception to the preservation requirementdoes not apply here, since the plea allocution did not cast significant doubt upon the defendant'sguilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of the plea(see People v Davis, 24 NY3d1012, 1013 [2014]; People vRamos, 164 AD3d 922, 922-923 [2018]). In any event, the defendant's contention iswithout merit, as the record as a whole affirmatively demonstrates that the defendant entered hisguilty plea knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d536, 543 [1993]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17 [1983]).
Further, the defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of hiscontention that the sentence was excessive (see People v Crews, 92 AD3d 795, 796 [2012]; People v Hawthorne, 85 AD3d 819[2011]). Scheinkman, P.J., Rivera, Roman and Christopher, JJ., concur.