| People v Istvan |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 01080 [180 AD3d 804] |
| February 13, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Steven Istvan, Appellant. |
Yasmin Daley Duncan, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kirsten A. Rappleyea ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County(Craig Stephen Brown, J.), rendered December 16, 2016, convicting him of assault in thefirst degree and aggravated criminal contempt, upon his plea of guilty, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant validly waived his right to appeal (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337 [2015]). Thedefendant's valid waiver precludes appellate review of his contention, raised in his pro sesupplemental brief, that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d248, 255-256 [2006]).
Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's valid waiver of his right toappeal does not preclude appellate review of his challenge to the voluntariness of his plea(see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]; People v Molina, 146 AD3d815 [2017]). During the plea allocution, the defendant made certain comments onthe record that called into question the voluntariness of the plea (cf. People vLopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]). At that point, the County Court indicated that itwould not accept the defendant's plea of guilty based on the allocution that had occurred.The court then fulfilled its duty to inquire further to ascertain that the defendant's plea ofguilty was knowing and voluntary. It also afforded the defendant additional time toconsult with counsel. Following the court's additional inquiry, the defendant did notthereafter equivocate or raise further objection, and he did not seek to withdraw the plea.Accordingly, his contention that the plea was not knowing and voluntary is unpreservedfor appellate review (see Peoplev Williams, 27 NY3d 212 [2016]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 667-668;People v Diaz, 164 AD3d519, 520 [2018]; People vSquitieri, 157 AD3d 911, 911 [2018]; People v Amay, 156 AD3d 895, 896 [2017]). In any event,the court's colloquy with the defendant established that the plea was knowing, voluntary,and intelligent (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 667). Leventhal, J.P., Roman,Cohen and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.