Opinion
2018–14950 Ind. No. 16–01033
07-22-2020
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Sheppard ADEGHE, also known as Shepard Adeghe, also known as "Shep," also known as "Cheff," Appellant.
Gerald Zuckerman, Croton–on–Hudson, NY, for appellant. Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Raffaelina Gianfrancesco of counsel), for respondent.
Gerald Zuckerman, Croton–on–Hudson, NY, for appellant.
Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Raffaelina Gianfrancesco of counsel), for respondent.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., COLLEEN D. DUFFY, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Barry E. Warhit, J.), rendered October 18, 2018, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent because it was allegedly coerced by the County Court's participation in the plea negotiations is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not move to vacate his plea or otherwise raise this issue before the court (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. McCracken, 138 A.D.3d 1147, 28 N.Y.S.3d 890 ). In any event, the defendant's claim is belied by the record, which reveals that the defendant acknowledged under oath that he was not forced, threatened, or coerced to plead guilty (see People v. Monroe, 174 A.D.3d 649, 650, 104 N.Y.S.3d 696 ; People v. McCracken, 138 A.D.3d 1147, 28 N.Y.S.3d 890 ; People v. Tavares, 103 A.D.3d 820, 821, 962 N.Y.S.2d 196 ). Further, the fact that the court was involved in the plea negotiations, without more, does not establish that the plea was coerced (see People v. McCracken, 138 A.D.3d 1147, 28 N.Y.S.3d 890 ; People v. Scannell, 134 A.D.3d 738, 19 N.Y.S.3d 772 ).
The record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 339–342, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256–257, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ). The defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46 ).
SCHEINKMAN, P.J., DUFFY, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.