Opinion
2012-10-24
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Thomas J. HLUBOKY, appellant.
Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marcia R. Kucera of counsel), for respondent.
Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marcia R. Kucera of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Efman, J.), rendered March 31, 2011, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (two counts), burglary in the third degree (three counts), criminal mischief in the second degree, unlawful fleeing from a police officer in a motor vehicle in the third degree, resisting arrest, and obstructed plate, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made because the court failed to enumerate the constitutional rights that he was waiving is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his plea of guilty on this ground prior to the imposition of sentence ( seeCPL 220.60[3]; 470.05[2]; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5;People v. Reyes, 41 A.D.3d 620, 836 N.Y.S.2d 418;People v. Wright, 34 A.D.3d 507, 828 N.Y.S.2d 63;People v. Mitchell, 22 A.D.3d 769, 802 N.Y.S.2d 372;People v. Singleton, 107 A.D.2d 828, 484 N.Y.S.2d 668). Furthermore, the narrow exception to the preservation rule, as set forth in People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5, is inapplicable, since there is nothing in the allocution that would cast significant doubt upon the defendant's guilt or call into question the voluntariness of the plea ( see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5;People v. Wright, 34 A.D.3d at 507, 828 N.Y.S.2d 63;People v. Jones, 21 A.D.3d 968, 969, 801 N.Y.S.2d 67;People v. Watson, 19 A.D.3d 518, 798 N.Y.S.2d 471). In any event, the defendant's contention is belied by the record.
The defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d 737, 738, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222;People v. Muniz, 91 N.Y.2d 570, 673 N.Y.S.2d 358, 696 N.E.2d 182) precludes appellate review of his claim that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, since the claim does not relate to the voluntariness of his plea ( see People v. Appling, 94 A.D.3d 1135, 1136, 942 N.Y.S.2d 617;People v. Duah, 91 A.D.3d 884, 936 N.Y.S.2d 907;People v. Williams, 84 A.D.3d 1417, 1418, 924 N.Y.S.2d 539).