Opinion
2021-06190 Ind. 18-00177
11-10-2021
The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Antoine Johnson, appellant.
Michele Marte-Indzonka, Newburgh, NY, for appellant. David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, NY (Edward D. Saslaw of counsel), for respondent.
Michele Marte-Indzonka, Newburgh, NY, for appellant.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, NY (Edward D. Saslaw of counsel), for respondent.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., COLLEEN D. DUFFY, BETSY BARROS, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (William L. DeProspo, J.), rendered April 9, 2019, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 564-565; People v Coplin, 194 A.D.3d 739, 739; People v Smith, 186 A.D.3d 872, 873). Thus, the defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contentions that his sentence was excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255-256; People v Batista, 167 A.D.3d 69, 75), that his plea allocution was factually insufficient (see People v Principato, 194 A.D.3d 851, 851; People v Elgut, 164 A.D.3d 1360, 1360), and that the procedure used to adjudicate him a second felony offender was defective (see People v Meyers, 172 A.D.3d 1236, 1237; People v Hicks, 134 A.D.3d 854). To the extent that the defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim directly involves the voluntariness of his plea and survives the valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Petgen, 55 N.Y.2d 529, 535 n 3; People v Rodriguez, 194 A.D.3d 1078, 1078-1079), this argument is belied by the defendant's statements during the plea proceeding. The defendant acknowledged under oath that he had enough time to discuss his plea with his attorney, that he was satisfied with his attorney's representation, and that he had not been forced into pleading guilty (see People v Vicente, 167 A.D.3d 951, 952; People v Ward, 140 A.D.3d 903, 904).
The defendant contends that the County Court erred in failing to conduct a further inquiry into the validity of the plea because his statements during his plea allocution and presentence interview negated an essential element of robbery in the second degree. This contention is without merit, as the defendant's statements did not negate an element of robbery in the second degree (see Penal Law §§ 155.05[1]; 160.00[2]; 160.10[1]).
AUSTIN, J.P., DUFFY, BARROS and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.