Opinion
2022–02588 S.C.I. No. 147/21
06-21-2023
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Remzi ALIJAJ, appellant.
Yasmin Daley Duncan, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Anna K. Diehn of counsel), for respondent.
Yasmin Daley Duncan, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Anna K. Diehn of counsel), for respondent.
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., ANGELA G. IANNACCI, PAUL WOOTEN, LARA J. GENOVESI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Edward T. McLoughlin, J.), rendered March 4, 2022, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second 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, and intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise this issue before the County Court (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Peque, 22 N.Y.3d 168, 182, 980 N.Y.S.2d 280, 3 N.E.3d 617 ; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ). In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant's plea of guilty was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 17, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170 ; People v. Luck, 175 A.D.3d 1430, 1431, 109 N.Y.S.3d 220 ).
The defendant's further contention that the County Court erred in failing to inquire into his mental competency to enter a plea of guilty is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Socci, 160 A.D.3d 904, 905, 71 N.Y.S.3d 896 ; People v. Washington, 134 A.D.3d 963, 963, 20 N.Y.S.3d 896 ). In any event, the contention is without merit (see People v. Tortorici, 92 N.Y.2d 757, 765, 767, 686 N.Y.S.2d 346, 709 N.E.2d 87 ; People v. Leasure, 177 A.D.3d 770, 772, 114 N.Y.S.3d 367 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 341–342, 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 his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his excessive sentence claim (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 261, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ; People v. Morrow, 198 A.D.3d 922, 923, 152 N.Y.S.3d 840 ).
DUFFY, J.P., IANNACCI, WOOTEN and GENOVESI, JJ., concur.