Opinion
2013-12-18
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Ramiro Alonzo MEJIA, appellant.
Christine Moccia, Chappaqua, N.Y., for appellant. Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Steven A. Bender and Richard Longworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.
Christine Moccia, Chappaqua, N.Y., for appellant. Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Steven A. Bender and Richard Longworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Molea, J.), rendered May 12, 2011, convicting him of arson in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his plea on this ground prior to the imposition of sentence ( seeCPL 220.60[3]; 470.05[2]; People v. Clarke, 93 N.Y.2d 904, 906, 690 N.Y.S.2d 501, 712 N.E.2d 668; People v. Cullum, 93 A.D.3d 856, 940 N.Y.S.2d 872; People v. Hayes, 91 A.D.3d 792, 936 N.Y.S.2d 902; People v. Kulmatycski, 83 A.D.3d 734, 920 N.Y.S.2d 670). Furthermore, the “rare case” exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant's allocution did not cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of his plea (People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5; see People v. McNair, 13 N.Y.3d 821, 822, 892 N.Y.S.2d 822, 920 N.E.2d 929; People v. Soria, 99 A.D.3d 1027, 1027, 952 N.Y.S.2d 300; People v. Young, 88 A.D.3d 918, 918, 931 N.Y.S.2d 235). In any event, the record reflects that the plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent ( see People v. Seeber, 4 N.Y.3d 780, 780–781, 793 N.Y.S.2d 826, 826 N.E.2d 797; People v. Alexander, 97 N.Y.2d 482, 485, 743 N.Y.S.2d 45, 769 N.E.2d 802; People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that the alleged ineffective assistance affected the voluntariness of his plea ( see People v. Ropiza, 100 A.D.3d 935, 954 N.Y.S.2d 188; People v. Watt, 82 A.D.3d 912, 918 N.Y.S.2d 347; People v. Aguayo, 73 A.D.3d 938, 939, 899 N.Y.S.2d 878). To the extent the defendant claims that the alleged ineffective assistance affected the voluntariness of his plea, the record reveals that he received an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel ( see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146–147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400; People v. Aguayo, 73 A.D.3d at 939, 899 N.Y.S.2d 878; People v. Hughes, 62 A.D.3d 1026, 878 N.Y.S.2d 911).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit ( see People v. Eun Sil Jang, 17 A.D.3d 693, 694, 793 N.Y.S.2d 540).