Opinion
2016–07860 Ind. No. 1317–15
12-19-2018
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Christopher GRIFFIN, Appellant.
The Law Offices of Christopher J. Cassar, P.C., Huntington, NY, for appellant. Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Alfred J. Croce of counsel), for respondent.
The Law Offices of Christopher J. Cassar, P.C., Huntington, NY, for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Alfred J. Croce of counsel), for respondent.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., WILLIAM F. MASTRO, BETSY BARROS, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Richard Ambro, J.), rendered June 22, 2016, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant validly waived his right to appeal (see People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal forecloses review of his challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution (see People v. Mendoza, 153 A.D.3d 1364, 1364, 60 N.Y.S.3d 495 ; People v. Smith, 146 A.D.3d 904, 904, 44 N.Y.S.3d 771 ; People v. Thompson, 143 A.D.3d 1007, 1008, 39 N.Y.S.3d 800 ). The defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal also precludes review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255–256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ).
The defendant's contention that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent survives a valid appeal waiver (see People v. Mendoza, 153 A.D.3d at 1364, 60 N.Y.S.3d 495 ; People v. Smith, 146 A.D.3d at 904, 44 N.Y.S.3d 771 ). However, the defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Williams, 27 N.Y.3d 212, 32 N.Y.S.3d 17, 51 N.E.3d 528 ). The exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here, because the defendant's plea allocution did not cast significant doubt upon his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of the plea (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Mendoza, 153 A.D.3d at 1365, 60 N.Y.S.3d 495 ; People v. Hardman, 135 A.D.3d 785, 786, 22 N.Y.S.3d 590 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the postplea assertions of innocence attributed to him in the presentence report did not call into question the voluntariness of the plea and did not obligate the County Court to conduct any further inquiry (see People v. Caceres, 155 A.D.3d 972, 63 N.Y.S.3d 899 ; People v. Maldonado, 144 A.D.3d 706, 707, 39 N.Y.S.3d 826 ; People v. Ellis, 142 A.D.3d 509, 35 N.Y.S.3d 920 ; People v. Axel M., 122 A.D.3d 946, 947, 998 N.Y.S.2d 93 ). In any event, the court conducted a sufficient inquiry regarding those assertions of innocence, and the defendant again admitted his guilt under oath at the time of sentencing.
SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.