Opinion
2018-06896 Ind. 1574/16
09-29-2021
The People, etc., respondent, v. Roxy Headley, Jr., appellant.
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Lisa Marcoccia of counsel), for appellant. Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Grazia DiVincenzo and Marion Tang of counsel), for respondent.
Argued - May 27, 2021
D67213 Y/htr
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Lisa Marcoccia of counsel), for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Grazia DiVincenzo and Marion Tang of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P. LEONARD B. AUSTIN COLLEEN D. DUFFY BETSY BARROS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mark D. Cohen, J.), rendered May 16, 2018, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal at the time he entered his plea of guilty (see People v Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 564; People v Mack, 168 A.D.3d 1100, 1100). The record reveals that the County Court adequately 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 (see e.g. People v Moore, 140 A.D.3d 1091, 1091; People v Corbin, 121 A.D.3d 803, 803-804). Moreover, the defendant signed a written waiver which adequately supplemented the oral colloquy (see People v Johnson, 185 A.D.3d 838, 839, lv granted 36 N.Y.3d 1120). 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 Smith, 193 A.D.3d 986; People v Palladino, 140 A.D.3d 1194, 1195).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his objections to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see People v Spencer, 149 A.D.3d 983, 983).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, since he did not move to withdraw his plea on this ground or otherwise raise this issue before the County Court (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665; People v Smith, 193 A.D.3d 986, 986). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant's allocution did not "call into question the voluntariness of the plea" (People v Dunkley, 177 A.D.3d 767, 768; see People v Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666). In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant's plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 667-668; People v Spencer, 149 A.D.3d at 983). The plea minutes demonstrate that, when the defendant's remarks triggered the court's duty to conduct a further inquiry to ensure that the defendant's plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 667-668), the court properly conducted such an inquiry.
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that the alleged ineffective assistance affected the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Okay, 172 A.D.3d 1104, 1105). The defendant's contention that his attorney's conduct affected the voluntariness of his plea is without merit (see id. at 1105).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
RIVERA, J.P., AUSTIN, DUFFY and BARROS, JJ., concur.