Opinion
2012-03-16
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Antwon M. WILLIAMS, also known as Antwon Q. Williams, Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered May 27, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the first degree.Kristin F. Splain, Conflict Defender, Rochester (Kimberly Czapranski of Counsel), for defendant–appellant. Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Leslie E. Swift of Counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered May 27, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the first degree.Kristin F. Splain, Conflict Defender, Rochester (Kimberly Czapranski of Counsel), for defendant–appellant. Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Leslie E. Swift of Counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
Upon appeal from a judgment convicting him following his plea of guilty of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30[2] ), defendant contends that his written waiver of his right to appeal, which he executed as part of the plea agreement, is not valid. We reject that contention ( see People v. Caraballo, 59 A.D.3d 971, 872 N.Y.S.2d 315, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 852, 881 N.Y.S.2d 663, 909 N.E.2d 586; People v. Duncan, 267 A.D.2d 995, 700 N.Y.S.2d 888, *915 lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 918, 708 N.Y.S.2d 357, 729 N.E.2d 1156). Defendant's further contention that County Court erred in denying that part of his omnibus motion seeking to suppress his statement made to the police is encompassed by defendant's waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754). Although defendant's contention that his plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent survives his valid waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v. Zulian, 68 A.D.3d 1731, 1732, 891 N.Y.S.2d 821, lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 894, 903 N.Y.S.2d 783, 929 N.E.2d 1018), defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as he did not move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction ( see People v. Watts, 78 A.D.3d 1593, 910 N.Y.S.2d 730, lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 838, 921 N.Y.S.2d 202, 946 N.E.2d 190). Nor can it be said that this case falls within the rare exception to the preservation requirement ( see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.