Majority
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of three counts of attempted aggravated murder (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.26 [1] [a] [i]). We reject at the outset the contention of defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal is void as against public policy (see People v Muniz, 91 NY2d 570 , 575 [1998]). Also contrary to the contention of defendant, the record establishes that his waiver of the right to appeal was voluntary, knowing and intelligent (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 , 256 [2006]; People v Grimes, 53 AD3d 1055 , 1055-1056 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 789 [2008]).
The further contention of defendant that his plea was not voluntary, knowing and intelligent because he did not recite the underlying facts of the crimes to which he pleaded guilty but simply replied to County Court’s questions with monosyllabic responses is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution. That challenge is encompassed by the valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Brown, 66 AD3d 1385 [2009]; People v Peters, 59 AD3d 928 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 820 [2009]; People v Bailey, 49 AD3d 1258 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 932 [2008]) and, in any event, defendant failed to preserve that challenge for our review by moving to withdraw the plea or by raising that ground in his motion to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 , 665 [1988]; Bailey, 49 AD3d at 1259 ). With respect to the merits of that challenge, we note that “there is no requirement that defendant recite the underlying facts of the crime[s] to which he is pleading guilty” (Bailey, 49 AD3d at 1259 ; see People v VanDeViver, 56 AD3d 1118 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 931 , 12 NY3d 788 [2009]).
In appeal No. 2, defendant appeals from an order denying his pro se CPL 440.30 motion to vacate the judgment of conviction. This Court granted defendant leave to appeal from that order pursuant to CPL 450.15 (1). We reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel’s failure to pursue the defense that defendant was not guilty by reason of mental defect. The record establishes that defendant both understood the nature of the plea and
Cases cited
- People v. Muniz 91 NY2d 570 at 575 p. 1436
- People v. Lopez 6 NY3d 248 at 256 p. 1436
- People v. Grimes 53 AD3d 1055 at 1055-1056 p. 1436
- People v. Brown 66 AD3d 1385 p. 1436
- People v. Bailey 49 AD3d 1258 p. 1436
- People v. Lopez 71 NY2d 662 at 665 p. 1436
- People v. Courcelle 15 AD3d 688 at 689 p. 1437
- People v. Rivera 71 NY2d 705 at 708-709 p. 1437
- People v. Ford 86 NY2d 397 at 404 p. 1437
- People v. Satterfield 66 NY2d 796 at 799 p. 1437
- People v. Lake 235 AD2d 921 p. 1437
- People v. Shamblee 222 AD2d 834 p. 1437