Opinion
Ind. No. 1360/20
01-24-2024
The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Victor Cabral, appellant.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Brian Perbix of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Keith Dolan of counsel; Lauren Slattery on the memorandum), for respondent.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Brian Perbix of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Keith Dolan of counsel; Lauren Slattery on the memorandum), for respondent.
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P., ANGELA G. IANNACCI, LARA J. GENOVESI, LOURDES M. VENTURA, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Heidi C. Cesare, J.), imposed January 11, 2022, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.
ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he validly waived his right to appeal (see People v Porter, 210 A.D.3d 911, 911). The Supreme Court "adequately advise[d] the defendant of the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving that right" (People v Vilmont, 216 A.D.3d 1113, 1114). The court sufficiently "explained, and the defendant acknowledged that he understood, the separate and distinct nature of the waiver of the right to appeal, and the court did not mischaracterize the nature or scope of the waiver" (People v Headley, 197 A.D.3d 1329, 1330). The defendant therefore "knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal at the time he entered his plea of guilty" (id. at 1329). The defendant's valid waiver of that right precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Delacruz, 213 A.D.3d 691, 691; People v Smith, 208 A.D.3d 1369, 1369-1370; People v Lawrence, 184 A.D.3d 587, 587).
CONNOLLY, J.P., IANNACCI, GENOVESI and VENTURA, JJ., concur.