Opinion
360 KA 16–00769
03-22-2019
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Omar I. BELLAMY, Defendant–Appellant. (Appeal No. 2.)
THEODORE W. STENUF, MINOA, FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
THEODORE W. STENUF, MINOA, FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
GREGORY S. OAKES, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, OSWEGO (AMY L. HALLENBECK OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance (CPCS) in the third degree ( Penal Law § 220.16[1] ) and CPCS in the fourth degree (§ 220.09[1] ), defendant contends that he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his right to appeal. We reject that contention. County Court "conducted an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice" ( People v. Burtes, 151 A.D.3d 1806, 1806, 58 N.Y.S.3d 766 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 978, 67 N.Y.S.3d 580, 89 N.E.3d 1260 [2017] [internal quotation marks omitted] ), and defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the court's suppression ruling (see People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754 [1999] ; People v. Braxton, 129 A.D.3d 1674, 1675, 10 N.Y.S.3d 791 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 965, 18 N.Y.S.3d 601, 40 N.E.3d 579 [2015] ).
To the extent that he contends that his guilty plea was coerced, defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review because he did not move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v. Darling, 125 A.D.3d 1279, 1279, 1 N.Y.S.3d 717 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 1071, 12 N.Y.S.3d 622, 34 N.E.3d 373 [2015] ), and this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation doctrine (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988] ).