Opinion
2017–01286 Ind. No. 120/16
05-01-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Raymond CAMACHO, Appellant.
Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, NY, for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Bridget Rahilly Steller of counsel), for respondent.
Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, NY, for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Bridget Rahilly Steller of counsel), for respondent.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, HECTOR D. LASALLE, BETSY BARROS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERAppeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Edward T. McLoughlin, J.), rendered January 18, 2017, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was charged with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts). On December 16, 2016, he pleaded guilty to one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree in exchange for a promised sentence of two years of imprisonment followed by two years of postrelease supervision. As part of the plea agreement, the defendant was asked to waive his right to appeal.
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 contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent survives his valid appeal waiver (see People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 10, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022 ; People v. Magnotta, 137 A.D.3d 1303, 27 N.Y.S.3d 403 ). Nevertheless, the defendant's plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646 ).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his claim that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel except to the extent that counsel's alleged ineffective assistance affected the voluntariness of his plea (see People v. Young, 97 A.D.3d 771, 948 N.Y.S.2d 124 ; People v. Watt, 82 A.D.3d 912, 918 N.Y.S.2d 347 ). To that extent, the defendant's claim is without merit, as the record demonstrates that the defendant's counsel provided him with meaningful representation (see People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213 ; People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 ).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d at 10, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022 ).
CHAMBERS, J.P., MALTESE, LASALLE and BARROS, JJ., concur.