Opinion
06-30-2016
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jonathan MALDONADO, Appellant.
Danielle Neroni Reilly, Albany, for appellant. P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Michael C. Wetmore of counsel), for respondent.
Danielle Neroni Reilly, Albany, for appellant.
P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Michael C. Wetmore of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., GARRY, ROSE, MULVEY and AARONS, JJ.
GARRY, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McDonough, J.), rendered May 2, 2014 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the second degree.
In satisfaction of a four-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the second degree and waived his right to appeal both orally and in writing. In accordance with the plea agreement, he was sentenced to six years in prison, to be followed by three years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
Initially, although defendant's waiver of his right to appeal does not preclude his challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea, we find that this challenge is not preserved for our review as the record fails to disclose that defendant made an appropriate postallocution motion to withdraw his plea (see People v. Buck, 136 A.D.3d 1117, 1118, 25 N.Y.S.3d 402 [2016] ; People v. Garry, 133 A.D.3d 1039, 1039, 19 N.Y.S.3d 192 [2015] ). Moreover, the exception to the preservation rule does not apply as defendant did not make any statements during the plea colloquy that cast doubt upon his guilt (see People v. Sawyer, 135 A.D.3d 1164, 1165, 22 N.Y.S.3d 711 [2016], lv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 1006, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d –––– [2016] ; People v. Garry, 133 A.D.3d at 1040, 19 N.Y.S.3d 192 ). Defendant further asserts that the interpreter who was present to assist him during the plea proceedings was not properly sworn and that he was confused by the interpretation, which affected the voluntariness of his plea. This claim too has not been preserved for our review due to defendant's failure to make an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v. Vasquez, 61 A.D.3d 1109, 1111, 876 N.Y.S.2d 548 [2009] ; People v. Tofaj, 14 A.D.3d 734, 786 N.Y.S.2d 846 [2005], lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 795, 801 N.Y.S.2d 816, 835 N.E.2d 676 [2005] ). Accordingly, the judgment must be affirmed.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
PETERS, P.J., ROSE, MULVEY and AARONS, JJ., concur.