Opinion
2000-11468
Argued September 11, 2003.
October 14, 2003.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barros, J.), rendered October 12, 2000, convicting him of rape in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Mark Diamond, New York, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Anthea H. Bruffee of counsel; Robert W. Ho on the brief), for respondent.
Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal ( see People v. Ciatto, 290 A.D.2d 560; People v. Walsh, 243 A.D.2d 590; People v. Torres, 236 A.D.2d 642). His waiver does not preclude review of his claim that his plea was not voluntarily or knowingly entered because he was not adequately advised of all the ramifications of the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C) ( see People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 10; People v. Vatore, 303 A.D.2d 607, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 566; People v. Powell, 273 A.D.2d 483) . However, his claim is unpreserved for appellate review as he did not move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground ( see People v. Harrell, 288 A.D.2d 489; People v. Sierra, 256 A.D.2d 598), and we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
The defendant's knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal encompasses his double jeopardy claim ( see People v. Muniz, 91 N.Y.2d 570; People v. Neilssen, 287 A.D.2d 469).
By pleading guilty before a Huntley hearing ( see People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72) was held, the defendant forfeited his right to appellate review of the contention in his supplemental pro se brief that his inculpatory statements to law enforcement officials should have been suppressed ( see People v. Carter, 304 A.D.2d 771; People v. Holmes, 268 A.D.2d 597). Further, even if a hearing had been held and that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress the statements had been denied, appellate review of that determination would have been foreclosed by his waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831; People v. Miller, 306 A.D.2d 294).
The defendant's waiver also precludes appellate review of his contention in his supplemental pro se brief that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel except to the extent that it may have affected the voluntariness of his plea ( see People v. Miller, supra; People v. Nicholas, 272 A.D.2d 629; People v. Holmes, supra). To the extent that his claim may be reviewed, it is without merit ( see People v. Miller, supra; People v. Nicholas, supra; People v. Holmes, supra).
ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and LUCIANO, JJ., concur.