Opinion
2019–12900 S.C.I. No. 61/19
08-04-2021
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Paul MAURO, appellant.
Gary E. Eisenberg, New City, NY, for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
Gary E. Eisenberg, New City, NY, for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Edward T. McLoughlin, J.), rendered July 19, 2019, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal was valid (see People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 341, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 254, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ; People v. Puccio, 191 A.D.3d 1022, 139 N.Y.S.3d 551 ). The record of the plea proceeding demonstrates that the defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Ovalles, 161 A.D.3d 1107, 1108, 73 N.Y.S.3d 894 ; People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d 133, 144–145, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297 ).
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his plea on this ground prior to the imposition of sentence (see CPL 220.60[3] ; 470.05[2]; People v. Hernandez, 110 A.D.3d 919, 919, 972 N.Y.S.2d 697 ; People v. Andrea, 98 A.D.3d 627, 627, 949 N.Y.S.2d 654 ). Furthermore, the exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here, since the defendant's plea allocution did not clearly cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of the plea (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Lujan, 114 A.D.3d 963, 963–964, 980 N.Y.S.2d 815 ). In any event, this contention is without merit.
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of the County Court's discretionary decision to decline to grant him youthful offender treatment (see People v. Pacherille, 25 N.Y.3d 1021, 1024, 10 N.Y.S.3d 178, 32 N.E.3d 393 ; People v. Pettiford, 187 A.D.3d 1062, 131 N.Y.S.3d 173 ).
AUSTIN, J.P., HINDS–RADIX, CONNOLLY and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.