| People v Thomas |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 07230 [189 AD3d 897] |
| December 2, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Mark S. Thomas, Appellant. |
Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, NY, for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kristen A. Rappleyea of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Edward T.McLoughlin, J.), rendered January 18, 2019, convicting him of criminal possession of acontrolled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d337, 341 [2015]; People vLopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). Although the defendant's contention that his plea ofguilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent survives his valid appeal waiver (see People v Ramos, 164 AD3d922 [2018]), the record demonstrates that his plea was knowingly, voluntarily, andintelligently entered (see People vSeeber, 4 NY3d 780, 781 [2005]; People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543[1993]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance ofcounsel during the plea proceeding as his attorney provided meaningful representation (seePeople v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]; People v Ingvarsdottir, 118 AD3d 1023, 1024 [2014]). Further, thedefendant failed to demonstrate the absence of a strategic or other legitimate explanation forcounsel's challenged conduct in permitting the defendant to waive his right to appeal as part ofthe plea agreement (see People vMiller, 161 AD3d 1579, 1580 [2018]; People v Turck, 305 AD2d 1072, 1073[2003]).
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 at255). Scheinkman, P.J., Dillon, LaSalle and Christopher, JJ., concur.