Opinion
2012-02-9
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Julie A. LEIP, Also Known as Julie Will, Appellant.
Justin Giffuni, Hauppauge, for appellant. Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Christopher D. Grace of counsel), for respondent.
Justin Giffuni, Hauppauge, for appellant. Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Christopher D. Grace of counsel), for respondent.
Before: MERCURE, Acting P.J., SPAIN, KAVANAGH, and EGAN JR., JJ.
STEIN, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered November 22, 2010, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of aggravated driving while intoxicated.
Defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated driving while intoxicated in satisfaction of a six-count indictment, a violation of probation charge and an unrelated charge of criminal impersonation in the second degree. In connection with her plea, defendant was sentenced, as agreed, to 1 to 3 years in prison followed by a three-year conditional discharge, requiring her to avoid further violations of the law and to install an ignition interlock device on any vehicle she owns or operates. Defendant now appeals.
Initially, we find that, based upon this record, defendant did not make a valid waiver of her right to appeal ( see People v. Lewis, 39 A.D.3d 1025, 1025, 833 N.Y.S.2d 757 [2007]; People v. Cain, 29 A.D.3d 1157, 1157, 814 N.Y.S.2d 417 [2006] ). However, defendant's contention that her plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent has not been preserved by a motion to withdraw her plea or vacate the judgment of conviction and, inasmuch as defendant did not make any statements during the plea allocution that negated an essential element of the crime or otherwise cast doubt on her guilt, the narrow exception to the preservation rule is not triggered here ( see People v. Norton, 88 A.D.3d 1027, 1028, 930 N.Y.S.2d 499 [2011]; People v. Lewis, 39 A.D.3d at 1025–1026, 833 N.Y.S.2d 757). Finally, by pleading guilty without first making a suppression motion and obtaining a final order with regard thereto, defendant forfeited her right to appellate review of the issue she now raises with regard to her statements to police ( see People v. Buckler, 80 A.D.3d 889, 890, 914 N.Y.S.2d 773 [2011], lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 804, 929 N.Y.S.2d 564, 953 N.E.2d 802 [2011]; People v. Costa, 4 A.D.3d 675, 676, 771 N.Y.S.2d 924 [2004], lvs. denied 2 N.Y.3d 797, 798, 781 N.Y.S.2d 297, 814 N.E.2d 469 [2004] ).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.