Opinion
03-30-2016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Maurizio MAGNOTTA, appellant.
John P. Savoca, Yorktown Heights, N.Y., for appellant. Robert Tendy, District Attorney, Carmel, N.Y. (David M. Bishop of counsel), for respondent.
John P. Savoca, Yorktown Heights, N.Y., for appellant.Robert Tendy, District Attorney, Carmel, N.Y. (David M. Bishop of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (Rooney, J.), rendered December 7, 2011, convicting him of criminal sexual act in the first degree and burglary in the third degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently 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 precludes appellate 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 his valid appeal waiver (see People v. Fontanet, 126 A.D.3d 723, 2 N.Y.S.3d 371 ). However, the defendant failed to preserve this contention for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw the plea (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Narbonne, 131 A.D.3d 626, 627, 14 N.Y.S.3d 917 ). In any event, the defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record of the plea proceeding reveals that he was adequately apprised of the constitutional rights forfeited by his plea of guilty (see People v. Pollidore, 123 A.D.3d 1058, 1059, 997 N.Y.S.2d 752 ).
The defendant's contention that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered because the County Court did not adequately inform him of the consequences of his plea on a determination pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art. 6–C) is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise this issue before the court and, in any event, the contention is without merit (see People v. Gravino, 14 N.Y.3d 546, 550, 902 N.Y.S.2d 851, 928 N.E.2d 1048 ; People v. Holcombe, 116 A.D.3d 1063, 1064, 983 N.Y.S.2d 875 ).
To the extent the defendant claims that the voluntariness of his plea was hindered by the ineffective assistance of his counsel, the defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ; People v. Rodriguez–Ovalles, 74 A.D.3d 1368, 903 N.Y.S.2d 258 ).
By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited judicial review of his contentions that the grand jury proceeding was rendered defective by the presentation of charges arising from two separate incidents and by the improper introduction of certain evidence (see People v. Hansen, 95 N.Y.2d 227, 231, 715 N.Y.S.2d 369, 738 N.E.2d 773 ; People v. Visconti, 96 A.D.3d 979, 946 N.Y.S.2d 489 ; People v. Ortiz, 84 A.D.3d 839, 840, 922 N.Y.S.2d 192 ), and that the evidence submitted to the grand jury was insufficient to support the indictment (see People v. O'Connor, 136 A.D.3d 945, 24 N.Y.S.3d 918 ; People v. Woods, 115 A.D.3d 997, 998, 982 N.Y.S.2d 180 ).
HALL, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.