Opinion
August 3, 2000.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Eidens, J.), rendered September 10, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal contempt in the first degree and sexual abuse in the third degree.
Mitch Kessler, Latham, for appellant.
Robert M. Carney, District Attorney (Alfred Chapleau of counsel), Schenectady, for respondent.
Before: Crew III, J.P., Peters, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Defendant waived indictment and pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him with criminal contempt in the first degree and sexual abuse in the third degree with the understanding that County Court would impose a prison sentence of 1 1/2 to 4 years. As a part of the agreement, defendant executed a written waiver of his right to appeal which encompassed all appealable issues, including the sentence. After considering defendant's request for a more lenient sentence, County Court sentenced defendant in accordance with the agreement. Defendant appeals.
By not moving to either withdraw his guilty plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve both his challenge to the validity of his guilty plea (see, People v. Moore, ___ A.D.2d ___, ___, 705 N.Y.S.2d 425, 426, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 800;People v. Merritt, 265 A.D.2d 732, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 826) and his claim of effectiveness of counsel (see, People v. Faulkner, 259 A.D.2d 905, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 924). The narrow exception to the preservation doctrine is inapplicable because the record reveals nothing which casts doubt upon defendant's guilt or the voluntariness of his plea (see, People v. Alicea, 264 A.D.2d 900, 901, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 876).
Next, defendant's arguments relating to the severity of his sentence, including his claim that County Court erred in denying his request for a more lenient sentence, are unpreserved for our review by reason of his knowing, voluntary and intelligent guilty plea and waiver of the right to appeal (see, People v. Walker, 266 A.D.2d 727, 728; People v. Charles, 258 A.D.2d 740, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 968). In any event, in light of the fact that defendant was arrested on more serious charges than those encompassed within the superior court information and because this sentence was to run concurrently with an unrelated one-year sentence imposed by City Court of the City of Schenectady, the term imposed was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Perez, 228 A.D.2d 821, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 968; People v. Halm, 180 A.D.2d 841, 843, affd 81 N.Y.2d 819).
Lastly, to the extent that defendant's challenges to certain procedural irregularities in the sentence proceeding survived his guilty plea and waiver, we find that these arguments are nonetheless unpreserved for our review by virtue of his failure to bring the alleged irregularities to County Court's attention (see,People v. Defayette, 241 A.D.2d 761, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 939; People v. Luisi, 238 A.D.2d 811, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 941; People v. Whitehead, 169 A.D.2d 847). Defendant's remaining contentions, to the extent not specifically addressed, have been reviewed and rejected.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.