Summary
addressing this same claim raised by Petitioner's appellate counsel as a challenge to the trial court's suppression decision
Summary of this case from Persaud v. KirkpatrickOpinion
2014-06-11
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Goutam PERSAUD, appellant.
Joseph R. Faraguna, Sag Harbor, N.Y., for appellant. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Douglas Noll and Andrea M. DiGregorio of counsel), for respondent.
Joseph R. Faraguna, Sag Harbor, N.Y., for appellant. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Douglas Noll and Andrea M. DiGregorio of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Donnino, J.), rendered May 10, 2012, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree, burglary in the first degree (two counts), and conspiracy in the fourth degree,upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal was valid. At the plea allocution, the Supreme Court sufficiently advised the defendant of the nature of the right to appeal, and the record establishes that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived that right ( see People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d 737, 738, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222;cf. People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 259–60, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his challenges, in effect, to the hearing court's suppression determination ( see People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754;People v. Oseni, 107 A.D.3d 829, 829, 966 N.Y.S.2d 677;People v. Hackett, 93 A.D.3d 807, 807, 939 N.Y.S.2d 886), and his claim that the sentence imposed was excessive ( see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 258, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145;People v. Rivera, 97 A.D.3d 704, 704, 947 N.Y.S.2d 900).
Although a claim that a plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent survives a valid waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022;People v. Santiago, 71 A.D.3d 703, 704, 894 N.Y.S.2d 904), the defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 220.60[3]; 470.05 [2]; People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 726, 631 N.Y.S.2d 119, 655 N.E.2d 160;People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5;People v. Oseni, 107 A.D.3d at 829, 966 N.Y.S.2d 677;People v. McKenzie, 98 A.D.3d 749, 750, 950 N.Y.S.2d 177). In any event, the contention is without merit. BALKIN, J.P., CHAMBERS, COHEN and DUFFY, JJ., concur.