Opinion
2012-03-6
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. John HARNAGE III, appellant.
Law Offices of Michael J. Collesano, LLM, P.C., New York, N.Y., for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Thomas C. Costello of counsel), for respondent.
Law Offices of Michael J. Collesano, LLM, P.C., New York, N.Y., for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Thomas C. Costello of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (J. Doyle, J.), rendered June 8, 2010, convicting him of aggravated vehicular homicide (four counts), vehicular manslaughter in the first degree (four counts), manslaughter in the second degree, driving while intoxicated (two counts), driving while ability impaired by drugs, driving while ability impaired by the combined influence of drugs or of alcohol and any drug or drugs, and reckless driving, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenge, in effect, to *922 the sufficiency of the indictment with respect to the charges of aggravated vehicular homicide and vehicular manslaughter in the first degree ( see People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 631 N.Y.S.2d 119, 655 N.E.2d 160; People v. Planty, 85 A.D.3d 1317, 1317–1318, 925 N.Y.S.2d 240; People v. Phelan, 77 A.D.3d 987, 909 N.Y.S.2d 159). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit ( see Penal Law §§ 125.13[3], 125.14[3] ).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal does not preclude review of his contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, to the extent that the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel affected the voluntariness of his plea of guilty ( see People v. Gedin, 46 A.D.3d 701, 847 N.Y.S.2d 231; People v. Dixon, 41 A.D.3d 861, 862, 841 N.Y.S.2d 314). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that the plea was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently ( see People v. Perazzo, 65 A.D.3d 1058, 886 N.Y.S.2d 43; see also People v. Gedin, 46 A.D.3d 701, 847 N.Y.S.2d 231).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his claim that his sentence was excessive ( see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255–256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145; People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 735–737, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.