Opinion
2018–10501 Ind.No. 174/17
12-02-2020
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Tashawn D. MILES, Appellant.
Carol Kahn, New York, NY, for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
Carol Kahn, New York, NY, for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P. SHERI S. ROMAN ROBERT J. MILLER PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Edward T. McLoughlin, J.), rendered April 27, 2018, convicting him of criminal sexual act in the first degree and criminal sexual act 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 entered is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Davis, 24 N.Y.3d 1012, 997 N.Y.S.2d 115, 21 N.E.3d 568 ; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ). In any event, the record reflects that the defendant acknowledged that he understood the charges against him and the rights that he was forfeiting, that he had discussed the plea, and possible defenses and arguments that could be raised at trial with his attorney, that he was satisfied with his attorney's representation, that he was not under the influence of any substances that would impair his thinking, and that he was entering the plea of his own free will. Under these circumstances, we find that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary (see People v. Valentin, 173 A.D.3d 1227, 100 N.Y.S.3d 909 ; People v. Rodriguez–Abreu, 170 A.D.3d 895, 93 N.Y.S.3d 858 ; People v. Anderson, 138 A.D.3d 876, 28 N.Y.S.3d 335 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal at the time he entered his plea of guilty (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 ; People v. Mack, 168 A.D.3d 1100, 92 N.Y.S.3d 404 ; People v. Moore, 140 A.D.3d 1091, 34 N.Y.S.3d 147 ; People v. Corbin, 121 A.D.3d 803, 993 N.Y.S.2d 746 ). The record reveals that the County Court adequately explained, and the defendant acknowledged that he understood, the separate and distinct nature of the waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Corbin, 121 A.D.3d at 805, 993 N.Y.S.2d 746 ).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his present challenge to the County Court's adverse suppression determination (see People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ; People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833–834, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754 ) and his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 ; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ; People v. Lovick, 127 A.D.3d 1108, 5 N.Y.S.3d 878 ).
RIVERA, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.