Opinion
No. 2021-08634
12-28-2022
The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Michael J. Tissiera, appellant. (S.C.I. No. 96/21)
Thomas N. N. Angell, Poughkeepsie, NY (Jennifer Burton of counsel), for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
Thomas N. N. Angell, Poughkeepsie, NY (Jennifer Burton of counsel), for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P. PAUL WOOTEN LARA J. GENOVESI BARRY E. WARHIT, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Edward T. McLoughlin, J.), rendered October 25, 2021, convicting him of aggravated family offense, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
In full satisfaction of a superior court information, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the felony of aggravated family offense. As a condition of his plea agreement, the defendant agreed to waive his right to appeal. The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, contending that he did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently enter a plea of guilty or waive his right to appeal, and that his sentence was excessive.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent, since he did not move to withdraw his plea on this ground prior to the imposition of sentence or otherwise raise the issue before the County Court (see People v Garner, 198 A.D.3d 813, 813-814; People v King, 169 A.D.3d 1060, 1061). In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant's plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v Garner, 198 A.D.3d at 813-814), and the court's alleged failure to address the consecutive nature of the defendant's sentence pursuant to Penal Law § 70.25(2-a) does not require vacatur of the plea (see People v Belliard, 20 N.Y.3d 381, 389).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, his waiver of the right to appeal was valid (see People v Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256; People v Cuellar, 174 A.D.3d 733, 734). The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 255; People v Rogers, 171 A.D.3d 1098, 1099).
BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., WOOTEN, GENOVESI and WARHIT, JJ., concur.