Opinion
01-11-2017
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Deanna MOLINA, appellant.
John P. Savoca, Yorktown Heights, N.Y., for appellant. David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, N.Y. (Andrew R. Kass of counsel; Paul W. Ostrer on the brief), for respondent.
John P. Savoca, Yorktown Heights, N.Y., for appellant.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, N.Y. (Andrew R. Kass of counsel; Paul W. Ostrer on the brief), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, SANDRA L. SGROI, ROBERT J. MILLER, and VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Freehill, J.), rendered July 9, 2014, convicting her of robbery in the first degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant contends that her plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent because she was not advised of certain constitutional rights she was forfeiting as a result of her plea of guilty, and because there was no inquiry as to whether she had discussed with her attorney the constitutional rights she was forfeiting. While the defendant validly waived her right to appeal (see People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d 737, 738, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222 ; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ; People v. Muniz, 91 N.Y.2d 570, 575, 673 N.Y.S.2d 358, 696 N.E.2d 182 ), her contentions concerning the voluntariness of her plea of guilty survive her appeal waiver (see People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 10, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022 ; People v. May, 138 A.D.3d 1146, 30 N.Y.S.3d 327 ; People v. Murphy, 114 A.D.3d 704, 705, 979 N.Y.S.2d 829 ; People v. Joseph, 103 A.D.3d 665, 959 N.Y.S.2d 261 ). However, this issue is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant failed to move to vacate her plea prior to the imposition of sentence or otherwise raise the issue in the County Court (see People v. Sirico, 135 A.D.3d 19, 22, 18 N.Y.S.3d 430 ; People v. Isaiah S., 130 A.D.3d 1081, 1081–1082, 13 N.Y.S.3d 840 ; People v. Bennett, 122 A.D.3d 871, 872, 996 N.Y.S.2d 369 ). In any event, the defendant's contentions are belied by the record. The record reveals that the court advised the defendant of her rights under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 and other constitutional rights she was forfeiting by pleading guilty (see People v. Sirico, 135 A.D.3d at 22, 18 N.Y.S.3d 430 ; People v. Isaiah S., 130 A.D.3d at 1082, 13 N.Y.S.3d 840 ; People v. Jackson, 114 A.D.3d 807, 807–808, 979 N.Y.S.2d 704 ). Furthermore, the defendant acknowledged that she had discussed the plea with her attorney, that she had consulted with her attorney regarding all of her options and potential defenses, and that she was satisfied with her attorney's representation (see People v. Addeo, 224 A.D.2d 539, 638 N.Y.S.2d 351 ; People v. Tuttle, 141 A.D.2d 584, 585, 530 N.Y.S.2d 158 ). The record as a whole affirmatively demonstrates that the defendant entered her plea of guilty knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v. Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d 375, 382–383, 23 N.Y.S.3d 124, 44 N.E.3d 199 ; People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 19–20, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170 ; People v. May, 138 A.D.3d 1146, 30 N.Y.S.3d 327 ).
The defendant's valid waiver of her right to appeal precludes appellate review of her contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d at 9, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022 ).