Opinion
106326.
01-28-2016
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James CONLEY, Appellant.
John Ferrara, Monticello, for appellant, and appellant pro se. James R. Farrell, District Attorney, Monticello (Michael J. Andreani of counsel), for respondent.
John Ferrara, Monticello, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
James R. Farrell, District Attorney, Monticello (Michael J. Andreani of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
McCARTHY, J.P.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (McGuire, J.), rendered November 12, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree and incest in the first degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree and incest in the first degree and waived his right to appeal. County Court thereafter sentenced him to two concurrent prison terms of 18 years, to be followed by 20 years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's valid and uncontested waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of conviction and sentence precludes both his challenge to the agreed-upon sentence as harsh and excessive (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 2006; People v. Morrison, 106 A.D.3d 1201, 1202, 964 N.Y.S.2d 761 2013, lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 1065, 994 N.Y.S.2d 324, 18 N.E.3d 1145 2014 ) and his challenge to County Court's denial of his application to redact certain information contained in the presentence investigation report (see People v. Joslin, 130 A.D.3d 1093, 1093–1094, 13 N.Y.S.3d 612 2015, lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 1009, 20 N.Y.S.3d 550, 42 N.E.3d 220 2015; People v. Guyette, 121 A.D.3d 1430, 1431, 995 N.Y.S.2d 395 2014 ). To the extent that defendant argues in his pro se brief that his plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary because it was coerced, this issue is unpreserved for our review as the record does not reflect that he made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v. Colon, 106 A.D.3d 1367, 1368, 966 N.Y.S.2d 269 2013; People v. Morelli, 46 A.D.3d 1215, 1216, 847 N.Y.S.2d 789 2007, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 814, 857 N.Y.S.2d 47, 886 N.E.2d 812 2008 ). Further, the narrow exception to the preservation rule is inapplicable here, as defendant did not make any statements during the plea colloquy that cast doubt upon his guilt or otherwise called into question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v. Kormos, 126 A.D.3d 1039, 1040, 4 N.Y.S.3d 390 2015; People v. Cajigas, 123 A.D.3d 1299, 1300, 996 N.Y.S.2d 796 2014 ). Defendant's remaining claims, to the extent they are properly before us, have been considered and found to be without merit.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
EGAN JR., LYNCH and CLARK, JJ., concur.