Opinion
2014-01-30
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sybil D. MONK, Appellant.
Joseph Nalli, Fort Plain, for appellant. James E. Conboy, District Attorney, Fonda (Kelli P. McCoski of counsel), for respondent.
Joseph Nalli, Fort Plain, for appellant.James E. Conboy, District Attorney, Fonda (Kelli P. McCoski of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., LAHTINEN, STEIN and , JJ.
, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Montgomery County (Catena, J.), rendered March 16, 2011, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of aggravated vehicular homicide.
Following a motor vehicle accident in which defendant's car crossed the center line and struck two motorcyclists, killing one and severely injuring the other, defendant pleaded guilty, in full satisfaction of an eight-count indictment, to aggravated vehicular homicide and waived her right to appeal her conviction and sentence. Thereafter, County Court sentenced defendant to the agreed-upon term of 6 to 18 years in prison and ordered the payment of nearly $20,000 in restitution. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Although defendant's contention that her plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary survives her valid waiver of appeal, the record does not demonstrate that defendant moved to withdraw her plea or vacate the judgment of conviction; hence, such argument has not been preserved for our review ( see People v. Henion, 110 A.D.3d 1349, 1350, 973 N.Y.S.2d 857 [2013]; People v. Gathers, 106 A.D.3d 1333, 1334, 965 N.Y.S.2d 246 [2013], lv. denied21 N.Y.3d 1073, 974 N.Y.S.2d 322, 997 N.E.2d 147 [2013] ). Moreover, inasmuch as defendant made no statements during the plea allocution that tended to cast doubt upon her guilt, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement is inapplicable ( see People v. Ladieu, 105 A.D.3d 1265, 1265–1266, 963 N.Y.S.2d 482 [2013], lv. denied21 N.Y.3d 1017, 971 N.Y.S.2d 499, 994 N.E.2d 395 [2013]; People v. Estrada, 102 A.D.3d 1064, 1064–1065, 958 N.Y.S.2d 543 [2013] ). In any event, defendant's present claim of confusion is belied by the record ( see People v. Vazquez, 34 A.D.3d 855, 855, 823 N.Y.S.2d 906 [2006], lv. denied8 N.Y.3d 850, 830 N.Y.S.2d 709, 862 N.E.2d 801 [2007]; cf. People v. Vallee, 97 A.D.3d 972, 974, 948 N.Y.S.2d 461 [2012], lv. denied20 N.Y.3d 1104, 965 N.Y.S.2d 801, 988 N.E.2d 539 [2013] ). Finally, defendant is precluded from challenging her sentence as harsh and excessive in light of her valid waiver of appeal ( see People v. Roche, 106 A.D.3d 1328, 1329, 965 N.Y.S.2d 245 [2013] ).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. PETERS, P.J., LAHTINEN and STEIN, JJ., concur.