Opinion
2017-10911 Ind. No. 19/16
07-10-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Charles KNEE, Appellant.
Michael J. Annibale, Garden City, NY, for appellant. Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (W. Thomas Hughes of counsel; Matthew C. Frankel on the brief), for respondent.
Michael J. Annibale, Garden City, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (W. Thomas Hughes of counsel; Matthew C. Frankel on the brief), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Meryl J. Berkowitz, J.), rendered November 22, 2016, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was valid and enforceable. The record shows that the defendant was sufficiently advised of the nature of the right to appeal, and that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived that right (see People v. Duryea, 116 A.D.3d 709, 710, 983 N.Y.S.2d 99 ; People v. Eccleston, 113 A.D.3d 699, 699, 978 N.Y.S.2d 702 ).
The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal does not foreclose appellate review of his contention that he was deprived of his right to due process when the Supreme Court failed to make further inquiry to determine whether he violated a condition of the plea agreement requiring that he not violate the law or be arrested for violating the law (see People v. Cousar, 128 A.D.3d 716, 716, 9 N.Y.S.3d 96 ; People v. Arrington, 94 A.D.3d 903, 903, 941 N.Y.S.2d 877 ). However, this issue is unpreserved for appellate review because the defendant never objected to the adequacy of the inquiry conducted by the court and did not move to withdraw his plea (see People v. Cousar, 128 A.D.3d at 716, 9 N.Y.S.3d 96 ; People v. Arrington, 94 A.D.3d at 903, 941 N.Y.S.2d 877 ). In any event, the defendant did not deny his involvement in the postplea crime or argue that there was no legitimate basis for his arrest, and thus, the court did not err in failing to conduct further inquiry into the matter (see People v. Shih–Siang Shawn Liao, 103 A.D.3d 757, 758, 959 N.Y.S.2d 447 ; People v. Billups, 63 A.D.3d 750, 750, 881 N.Y.S.2d 445 ; People v. Huggins, 45 A.D.3d 1380, 1380, 845 N.Y.S.2d 609 ). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention 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. Batista, 167 A.D.3d 69, 73–75, 86 N.Y.S.3d 492 ; People v. Baptiste, 164 A.D.3d 1357, 1357, 81 N.Y.S.3d 762 ; People v. Duryea, 116 A.D.3d at 710, 983 N.Y.S.2d 99 ).
MASTRO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, MALTESE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.