Majority
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (De Rosa, J.), rendered November 19, 2014, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
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]; People v Clarke, 93 NY2d 904 , 906 [1999]; People v Andrea, 98 AD3d 627 [2012]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant’s plea allocution did not cast significant doubt upon his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of the plea (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 , 666 [1988]; People v Gibson, 95 AD3d 1033 [2012]).
The defendant’s contentions regarding the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution and the excessiveness of his sentence are precluded by his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337 , 340-341 [2015]; People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737 [2006]; People v Crews, 92 AD3d 795 [2012]; People v Hardee, 84 AD3d 835 [2011]). The defendant’s contention regarding the evidence presented before the grand jury is precluded both by his plea of guilty (see People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569 , 572 [2004]; People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227 , 233
Leventhal, J.P., Sgroi, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Andrea 98 AD3d 627 p. 887
- People v. Lopez 71 NY2d 662 at 666 p. 887
- People v. Gibson 95 AD3d 1033 p. 887
- People v. Sanders 25 NY3d 337 at 340-341 p. 887
- People v. Crews 92 AD3d 795 p. 887
- People v. Hansen 95 NY2d 227 at 233 p. 887
- People v. Guerrero 126 AD3d 613 at 614 p. 888
- People v. Howard 119 AD3d 1090 at 1091 p. 888