Opinion
2012-05-15
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Rashawn M. PERNELL, appellant.
Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Michael Blakey of counsel), for respondent.
Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Michael Blakey of counsel), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hinrichs, J.), both rendered January 19, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 1680/10, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree under Indictment No. 2419/10, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his pleas of guilty were not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his pleas on this ground prior to sentencing ( see CPL 220.60[3]; 470.05[2]; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665–666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5; *897 People v. Hayes, 91 A.D.3d 792, 936 N.Y.S.2d 902). In any event, nothing in the plea allocutions cast significant doubt on his guilt or called into question the voluntariness of his pleas of guilty ( see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5; People v. Ortiz, 89 A.D.3d 1113, 933 N.Y.S.2d 609).
The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that the alleged ineffectiveness affected the voluntariness of the pleas ( see People v. Duah, 91 A.D.3d 884, 885, 936 N.Y.S.2d 907). To the extent that the defendant's claim is not precluded, it is without merit ( see People v. Yarborough, 83 A.D.3d 875, 920 N.Y.S.2d 681).
The appeal waiver precludes review of the defendant's claim that his sentences were excessive ( see People v. Duah, 91 A.D.3d at 885, 936 N.Y.S.2d 907).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.