At page 1100 Waiver precluding claims of harsh or excessive sentence10 citing cases“Accordingly, we conclude that she knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived the right to appeal her conviction and sentence (see People v Lyman, 119 AD3d 968, 969 [2014]; People v Fligger, 117 AD3d 1343, 1344 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1061 [2014]).”
- People v. Dejesus, 146 A.D.3d 1077 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2017).publishedMoreover, the issue is not preserved for our review as the record does not reflect that defendant made any postallocution motion to withdraw his plea, and no statements made during the plea colloquy warrant the application of the narrow ex…
- People v. Dunkelberger, 139 A.D.3d 1255 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2016).publishedThe court also confirmed that defendant had sufficient time to discuss her waiver with defense counsel and that she understood its ramifications; defendant also executed a detailed written waiver in open court (see People v Mayo, 130 AD3d…
- 106454 People v. Larock, 139 A.D.3d 1241 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2016).publishedMoreover, defendant did not make any statements during the plea colloquy suggestive of an intoxication defense, and his postplea remark during a discussion concerning the order of protection did not obligate the court to make further inqui…
- People v. Smith, 137 A.D.3d 1425 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2016).publishedDefendant’s remaining contention, that his sentence is harsh and excessive, is precluded by his valid appeal waiver (see People v Mayo, 130 AD3d 1099, 1100 [2015]; People v Almeida, 127 AD3d 1499, 1500 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1006 [2015]…
- People v. Griffith, 136 A.D.3d 1114 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2016).published This claim, however, is not preserved for our review given that defendant did not make an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Mayo, 130 AD3d 1099, 1100 [2015]; People v Bryant, 128 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 926…
- People v. Crispell, 136 A.D.3d 1121 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2016).published Therefore, defendant’s claim that his sentence is harsh and excessive is foreclosed (see People v Mayo, 130 AD3d 1099, 1100 [2015]; People v Oginski, 123 AD3d 1303 , 1303 [2014], lv denied 26 NY3d 970 [2015]).
- People v. McKenzie, 136 A.D.3d 1120 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2016).published Defendant’s waiver precludes his challenge to the severity of his sentence (see People v Mayo, 130 AD3d 1099, 1100 [2015]; People v Almeida, 127 AD3d 1499, 1500 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1006 [2015]).
At page 1099 Devine, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, J.), rendered January 10, 2014, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty…1 citing case
- People v. White, 145 A.D.3d 1324 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2016).publishedAccordingly, we conclude that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence (see People v Pandori, 133 AD3d 1044, 1045 [2015]; People v Mayo, 130 AD3d 1099, 1099-1100 [2015]).
v.
Katherine M. Mayo, Appellant
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, J.), rendered January 10, 2014, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of criminal mischief in the third degree.
Defendant waived indictment, pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging her with criminal mischief in the third degree and waived her right to appeal. County Court thereafter sentenced her, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of IV2 to 3 years. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Contrary to defendant’s contention, her waiver of the right to appeal was valid. Both the plea colloquy and the[*1100] written waiver informed her of the separate and distinct nature of her right to appeal, and County Court confirmed that defendant had discussed the waiver with counsel and understood its ramifications. Accordingly, we conclude that she knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived the right to appeal her conviction and sentence (see People v Lyman, 119 AD3d 968, 969 [2014]; People v Fligger, 117 AD3d 1343, 1344 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1061 [2014]). Defendant’s valid waiver precludes her contention that her sentence is harsh and excessive (see People v Velazquez, 125 AD3d 1063, 1063 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 993 [2015]; People v Merrill, 123 AD3d 1339, 1340 [2014]).
Defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of her guilty plea and her claim that the plea should be vacated because County Court failed to inquire as to a potential intoxication defense are unpreserved for our review, inasmuch as the record does not indicate that she made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Pearson, 110 AD3d 1116, 1116 [2013]; People v Campbell, 81 AD3d 1184, 1185 [2011]). Moreover, defendant did not make any statements during the plea colloquy that cast doubt upon her guilt or negated an essential element of the crime so as to trigger the narrow exception to the preservation rule or obligate County Court to undertake further inquiry concerning a potential intoxication defense (see People v Brown, 125 AD3d 1049, 1049-1050 [2015]; People v Pearson, 110 AD3d at 1116).
McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.