Opinion
2017–12711
11-06-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Blake C. CARDONA, Appellant. (S.C.I. No. 236/13)
Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, NY, for appellant. Robert V. Tendy, District Attorney, Carmel, N.Y. (David M. Bishop of counsel), for respondent.
Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, NY, for appellant.
Robert V. Tendy, District Attorney, Carmel, N.Y. (David M. Bishop of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (James F. Reitz, J.), rendered November 2, 2017, convicting him of driving while intoxicated, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Rivera, 126 A.D.3d 727, 2 N.Y.S.3d 376 ; People v. Sanders, 112 A.D.3d 748, 976 N.Y.S.2d 205, affd 25 N.Y.3d 337, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ). The County Court adequately explained, and the defendant acknowledged that he understood, the separate and distinct nature of the waiver of the right to appeal, and the defendant signed a written waiver which he discussed with counsel and which adequately supplemented the oral colloquy (see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 267, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 ).
While the defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent survives his valid waiver of the right to appeal, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review because he failed to move to withdraw the plea prior to sentencing (see People v. Strongminton, 169 A.D.3d 723, 91 N.Y.S.3d 710 ). In any event, the plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646 ; People v. Strongminton, 169 A.D.3d at 723, 91 N.Y.S.3d 710 ).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contentions that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ; People v. Soria, 99 A.D.3d 1027, 952 N.Y.S.2d 300 ). To the extent that a portion of the defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim survives his valid waiver of the right to appeal, the contention is without merit (see People v. Moore, 140 A.D.3d 1091, 34 N.Y.S.3d 147 ).
BALKIN, J.P., CHAMBERS, AUSTIN and LASALLE, JJ., concur.