Opinion
106221
07-23-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael T. HUDSON, Appellant.
Cappy Weiner, Kingston, for appellant. James R. Farrell, District Attorney, Monticello (Michael J. Andreani of counsel), for respondent.
Cappy Weiner, Kingston, for appellant.
James R. Farrell, District Attorney, Monticello (Michael J. Andreani of counsel), for respondent.
Before: GARRY, J.P., EGAN JR., ROSE and LYNCH, JJ.
Opinion
EGAN JR., J.Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.), rendered September 6, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the second degree.
In full satisfaction of a five-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the second degree and waived his right to appeal. Defendant thereafter was sentenced, as an admitted second felony offender, to the agreed-upon prison term of 11 years followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Initially, the record reflects that County Court adequately explained the separate and distinct nature of the waiver of the right to appeal and that defendant thereafter executed a detailed written waiver to that effect. Accordingly, we are satisfied that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal his conviction and sentence was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v. Sibounhome, 125 A.D.3d 1059, 1059, 3 N.Y.S.3d 192 [2015] ; People v. Oginski, 123 A.D.3d 1303, 1303, 996 N.Y.S.2d 799 [2014] ).
As to the remaining arguments, to the extent that defendant's brief may be read as challenging the voluntariness of his plea, we note that although this issue survives defendant's waiver of the right to appeal, it is unpreserved for our review absent evidence of an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v. Kormos, 126 A.D.3d 1039, 1040, 4 N.Y.S.3d 390 [2015] ; People v. Merrill, 123 A.D.3d 1339, 1339–1340, 999 N.Y.S.2d 265 [2014] ), as is defendant's claim of coercion (see People v. Ross, 117 A.D.3d 1342, 1342–1343, 986 N.Y.S.2d 687 [2014] ; People v. Colon, 106 A.D.3d 1367, 1368, 966 N.Y.S.2d 269 [2013] ). Further, although defendant initially denied knowing that his accomplices intended to burglarize the residence in question, County Court twice adjourned the matter, following which defendant unequivocally admitted his guilt (see e.g. People v. Rodriguez, 59 A.D.3d 173, 173, 873 N.Y.S.2d 35 [2009], lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 858, 881 N.Y.S.2d 670, 909 N.E.2d 593 [2009] ; People v. Hillendale, 244 A.D.2d 911, 912, 665 N.Y.S.2d 196 [1997] ). As such, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement was not triggered (see People v. Kormos, 126 A.D.3d at 1040, 4 N.Y.S.3d 390 ). Finally, we are not persuaded that defendant was denied the right to counsel at a critical stage of the underlying criminal action (see People v. Kaetzel, 117 A.D.3d 1187, 1189, 985 N.Y.S.2d 734 [2014], lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 962, 996 N.Y.S.2d 221, 20 N.E.3d 1001 [2014] ).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
GARRY, J.P., ROSE and LYNCH, JJ., concur.