Crimes - Plea of Guilty - Forfeiture of Right to Raise Issues on Appeal

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County(Karen M. Wilutis, J.), rendered September 26, 2022, convicting him of course of sexualconduct against a child in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposingsentence.

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 Eastman, 234AD3d 985, 986 [2025]; People v Stevens, 203 AD3d 958, 959 [2022]).

The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of hischallenge to the County Court's suppression determination (see People vHightower-Castro, 219 AD3d 504, 505 [2023]; People v Barnes, 210 AD3d792, 793 [2022]).

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, andintelligent survives his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Bennett, 122 AD3d 871, 872 [2014]).However, the defendant failed to preserve this contention for appellate review, since hedid not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise the issue before the County Court(see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; People v Melvin, 165 AD3d1291, 1291 [2018]). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit, sincethe record clearly establishes that his plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, andintelligently entered after he was fully advised of the rights that he was forfeiting bypleading guilty (see People vSougou, 26 NY3d 1052, 1055 [2015]; People v Okay, 172 AD3d 1104, 1104-1105 [2019]).

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, 255-256 [2006]), as wellas his contention that the sentence violated his constitutional rights against cruel andunusual punishment (see Peoplev Yakubov, 204 AD3d 1043, 1044 [2022]).

The defendant's contentions concerning the duration of a final order of protectionissued at the time of sentencing are unpreserved for appellate review, as he failed to raiseany of [*2]these issues at sentencing or move to amendthe final order of protection on the ground that it was improper (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Nieves, 2NY3d 310, 316-317 [2004]; People v Lin Li, 207 AD3d 566, 570 [2022]). We declineto reach these issues in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see People vLin Li, 207 AD3d at 570).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Connolly, J.P., Miller,Ventura and McCormack, JJ., concur.