Opinion
11745 Ind. 2205/14
07-02-2020
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Raymond RODRIGUEZ–MEDINA, Defendant–Appellant.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Benjamin Rutkin–Becker of counsel), for appellant. Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Joshua P. Weiss of counsel), for respondent.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Benjamin Rutkin–Becker of counsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Joshua P. Weiss of counsel), for respondent.
Richter, J.P., Kapnick, Webber, Gesmer, Moulton, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Eugene Oliver, J.), rendered August 3, 2017, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4½ years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's challenges to the voluntariness of his plea do not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665–666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988] ), and we decline to review these unpreserved claims in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal. Defendant's plea allocution establishes the voluntariness of the plea and contains nothing that casts any doubt on defendant's guilt (see People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 631 N.Y.S.2d 119, 655 N.E.2d 160 [1995] ). Defendant's statement at sentencing, viewed as a whole, was not an assertion of the defense of justification requiring further inquiry, but an apologetic request for leniency, citing the victim's conduct as a mitigating factor (see People v. Matos, 27 A.D.3d 485, 812 N.Y.S.2d 577 [2d Dept. 2006] ). The record also fails to support defendant's assertion that he received misinformation about the issues that remained reviewable on appeal after his guilty plea.
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. Regardless of the validity of defendant's appeal waiver, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.