Opinion
537 KA 13-01617
05-01-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Timothy INGRAM, Defendant–Appellant.
D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (Bradley E. Keem of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Valerie G. Gardner, District Attorney, Penn Yan (Megan P. Dadd of Counsel), for Respondent.
D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (Bradley E. Keem of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Valerie G. Gardner, District Attorney, Penn Yan (Megan P. Dadd of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, SCONIERS, WHALEN, and DeJOSEPH, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, driving while ability impaired by the combined influence of drugs or of alcohol and any drug or drugs as a class E felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192[4–a] ; 1193[1][c][i] ). Inasmuch as defendant entered a plea of guilty, he “forfeited his present challenge to County Court's Sandoval ruling” (People v. Condes, 23 A.D.3d 1149, 1150, 805 N.Y.S.2d 753, lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 774, 811 N.Y.S.2d 341, 844 N.E.2d 796 ; see People v. Johnson, 104 A.D.3d 705, 706, 960 N.Y.S.2d 206 ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the plea colloquy demonstrates that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Kosty, 122 A.D.3d 1408, 1408, 996 N.Y.S.2d 449, lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 1220, 4 N.Y.S.3d 608, 28 N.E.3d 44 ; People v. Estevez–Santos, 114 A.D.3d 1174, 1175, 979 N.Y.S.2d 907, lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 1019, 992 N.Y.S.2d 802, 16 N.E.3d 1282 ). Although defendant's further contention that his plea was not voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered because he gave inconsistent information concerning when he ingested the drugs on the day of the incident survives his waiver of the right to appeal, he failed to preserve that contention for our review (see People v. Davis, 45 A.D.3d 1357, 1357–1358, 844 N.Y.S.2d 739, lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 1005, 850 N.Y.S.2d 393, 880 N.E.2d 879 ). In any event, defendant's contention lacks merit. After defendant indicated that he took the drugs in the morning, well before this accident, the court asked him further questions about the drugs he took and when he took them. In response, defendant admitted that he ingested several drugs closer to the time that he operated the vehicle, and he admitted that he was under the influence of those drugs when he drove the vehicle off the road and struck a house (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[4–a] ). Thus, “the court conducted an inquiry that ‘was sufficient to ensure that the plea was voluntary’ ” (People v. Zuliani, 68 A.D.3d 1731, 1732, 891 N.Y.S.2d 821, lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 894, 903 N.Y.S.2d 783, 929 N.E.2d 1018 ).
Finally, defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v. Lococo, 92 N.Y.2d 825, 827, 677 N.Y.S.2d 57, 699 N.E.2d 416 ; People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 737, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.