Opinion
2013-11-8
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eric SAHM, Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Barry M. Donalty, J.), rendered*821May 2, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree. Frank J. Nebush, Jr., Public Defender, Utica (David A. Cooke of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Eric Sahm, Defendant–Appellant Pro Se.
Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Barry M. Donalty, J.), rendered*821May 2, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree.
Frank J. Nebush, Jr., Public Defender, Utica (David A. Cooke of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Eric Sahm, Defendant–Appellant Pro Se.
Scott D. McNamara, District Attorney, Utica (Steven G. Cox of Counsel), for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65[3] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal ( see generally People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145), and that valid waiver forecloses any challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence ( see id. at 255, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145;see generally People v. Lococo, 92 N.Y.2d 825, 827, 677 N.Y.S.2d 57, 699 N.E.2d 416;People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 737, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46).
We reject defendant's further contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered. “ ‘Here, defendant's belated and conclusory allegations of innocence in support of the motion [to withdraw the plea] are belied by the plea colloquy’ ” ( People v. Nelson, 66 A.D.3d 1430, 1430, 885 N.Y.S.2d 849,lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 772, 898 N.Y.S.2d 104, 925 N.E.2d 109), as is defendant's conclusory and unsupported allegation made in his pro se supplemental brief that his attention deficit hyperactivity disorder rendered him unable to understand the proceedings ( see People v. Brooks, 89 A.D.3d 747, 747–748, 931 N.Y.S.2d 908,lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 955, 944 N.Y.S.2d 484, 967 N.E.2d 709). Moreover, the requirements of the Sex Offender Registration Act are collateral consequences of a guilty plea ( see People v. Magliocco, 101 A.D.3d 1724, 1724, 955 N.Y.S.2d 904), and the potential termination of parental rights with respect to biological children is not an automatic consequence of being convicted of a sex offense or having to register as a sex offender ( see generally Matter of Afton C. [James C.], 17 N.Y.3d 1, 10–11, 926 N.Y.S.2d 365, 950 N.E.2d 101). Thus, County Court was not required to advise defendant of those matters at the time of the plea.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.