Opinion
11773 Ind. 1032/16
07-09-2020
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Alden LEE, Defendant–Appellant.
Jonathan Rosenberg, PLLC, Brooklyn (Jonathan Rosenberg of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Frank Glaser of counsel), for respondent.
Jonathan Rosenberg, PLLC, Brooklyn (Jonathan Rosenberg of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Frank Glaser of counsel), for respondent.
Acosta, P.J., Manzanet–Daniels, Kapnick, Singh, Gonza´lez, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ann E. Scherzer, J.), rendered February 21, 2019, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of two years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's challenge to his plea does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v. Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d 375, 381, 23 N.Y.S.3d 124, 44 N.E.3d 199 [2015] ), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. Unlike the facts in People v. Mox, 20 N.Y.3d 936, 958 N.Y.S.2d 670, 982 N.E.2d 590 [2012], there was nothing in defendant's plea allocution itself that required the court to inquire about a potential psychiatric defense (see People v. Robinson, 179 A.D.3d 568, 114 N.Y.S.3d 635 [1st Dept. 2020] ). Nor was the court's duty to inquire triggered by statements made during the preceding 18 months of plea negotiations with prior counsel (see People v. Rodriguez, 144 A.D.3d 498, 40 N.Y.S.3d 429 [1st Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1188, 52 N.Y.S.3d 714, 75 N.E.3d 106 [2017] ).
Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 [2019] ; People v. Bryant, 28 N.Y.3d 1094, 45 N.Y.S.3d 335, 68 N.E.3d 60 [2016] ), which forecloses review of his excessive sentence claim. (see People v. Tolbert, 168 A.D.3d 498, 89 N.Y.S.3d 891 [1st Dept.], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 954, 100 N.Y.S.3d 167, 123 N.E.3d 826 [2019] ). Regardless of the validity of defendant's waiver of his right to appeal, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.