Opinion
437 KA 12-01834
05-01-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Quentin J. HICKS, Defendant–Appellant.
Linda M. Campbell, Syracuse, for Defendant–Appellant. Gregory S. Oakes, District Attorney, Oswego (Amy L. Hallenbeck of Counsel), for Respondent.
Linda M. Campbell, Syracuse, for Defendant–Appellant.
Gregory S. Oakes, District Attorney, Oswego (Amy L. Hallenbeck of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, VALENTINO, and WHALEN, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted conspiracy in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 105.15 ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the waiver of the right to appeal was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ; People v. Rios, 93 A.D.3d 1349, 1349, 940 N.Y.S.2d 512, lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 966, 950 N.Y.S.2d 118, 973 N.E.2d 216 ; People v. Wackwitz, 93 A.D.3d 1220, 1220–1221, 940 N.Y.S.2d 425, lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 868, 947 N.Y.S.2d 417, 970 N.E.2d 440 ). Defendant further contends that the plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because he did not admit that he intended to kill the victim. That contention is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution, which is encompassed by the valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Schmidli, 118 A.D.3d 1491, 1491, 987 N.Y.S.2d 540, lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 1067, 994 N.Y.S.2d 326, 18 N.E.3d 1147 ; People v. Gardner, 101 A.D.3d 1634, 1634, 956 N.Y.S.2d 367 ; Rios, 93 A.D.3d at 1349, 940 N.Y.S.2d 512 ). In any event, defendant also failed to preserve his contention for our review by failing to move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground (see People v. Lugg, 108 A.D.3d 1074, 1075, 968 N.Y.S.2d 785 ; Gardner, 101 A.D.3d at 1634, 956 N.Y.S.2d 367 ).
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court improperly delegated its duty to conduct the plea allocution to defense counsel (see People v. Swontek [Appeal No. 1], 289 A.D.2d 989, 989, 734 N.Y.S.2d 919, lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 762, 742 N.Y.S.2d 623, 769 N.E.2d 369 ). In any event, that contention and defendant's related contention that his right to counsel was violated are without merit (see People v. Rossborough, 105 A.D.3d 1332, 1334, 963 N.Y.S.2d 494, lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 1045, 972 N.Y.S.2d 542, 995 N.E.2d 858 ). Finally, the waiver of the right to appeal encompasses defendant's contention that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe (see People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 737, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.