| People v Maldonado |
| 2021 NY Slip Op 03334 [194 AD3d 1076] |
| May 26, 2021 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Bruce Maldonado, Appellant. |
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Lisa Marcoccia of counsel), for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Marcia R. Kucera and Glenn Green ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Timothy P.Mazzei, J.), rendered January 15, 2019, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlledsubstance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent.Since this issue would survive a valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Jenkins, 165 AD3d1167, 1168 [2018]), we do not consider the validity of the defendant's purported appealwaiver (see People v Manzanales,170 AD3d 752, 752-753 [2019]).
However, the defendant failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of whether his pleaof guilty was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, since he did not move to withdraw his plea orotherwise raise the issue before the County Court (see People v Coverdale, 189 AD3d 1610, 1610-1611 [2020]; People v Stamps, 188 AD3d 1105[2020]).
In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit. The record reflects that thedefendant was aware that he was pleading guilty to attempted criminal sale of a controlledsubstance in the third degree, that he was satisfied with the representation of his attorney, that hewas adequately advised of, and understood, the constitutional rights that he was waiving, and thathe was entering the plea of his own free will. Under the circumstances, we find that thedefendant's plea of guilty was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Miles, 189 AD3d890, 890-891 [2020]). The fact that the defendant allocuted to the completed crime ofcriminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, while pleading guilty to the lesserincluded offense of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, did notrender the plea unknowing, involuntary, or unintelligent (see People v Torres, 125 AD2d252 [1986]). LaSalle, P.J., Hinds-Radix, Connolly and Christopher, JJ., concur.