validity of his appeal waiver in New York

2025Since defendant raises no challenge as to the validity of his appeal waiver, any contention that the sentence was unduly harsh or severe is foreclosed ( see People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 255-256 [2006]; People v Wheeler , 221 AD3d 1349, 1350 [3d Dept 2023]). [FN1] Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea, which survives the appeal waiver, is unpreserved because defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise the issue before County Court ( see People v Bailey , 232 AD3d 1031 , 1033 [3d Dept 2024], lv denied 43 NY3d 929 [2025]).

2025Since defendant raises no challenge as to the validity of his appeal waiver, any contention that the sentence was unduly harsh or severe is foreclosed ( see People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 255-256 [2006]; People v Wheeler , 221 AD3d 1349, 1350 [3d Dept 2023]). [FN1] Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea, which survives the appeal waiver, is unpreserved because defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise the issue before County Court ( see People v Bailey , 232 AD3d 1031 , 1033 [3d Dept 2024], lv denied 43 NY3d 929 [2025]).

2015Although defendant does not challenge the validity of his appeal waiver, our review of the record confirms that his oral and written waiver of the right to appeal his conviction and sentence was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264-265 [2011]). .

2015Although defendant does not challenge the validity of his appeal waiver, our review of the record confirms that his oral and written waiver of the right to appeal his conviction and sentence was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264-265 [2011]). .

2025Since defendant raises no challenge as to the validity of his appeal waiver, any contention that the sentence was unduly harsh or severe is foreclosed ( see People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 255-256 [2006]; People v Wheeler , 221 AD3d 1349, 1350 [3d Dept 2023]). [FN1] Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea, which survives the appeal waiver, is unpreserved because defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise the issue before County Court ( see People v Bailey , 232 AD3d 1031 , 1033 [3d Dept 2024], lv denied 43 NY3d 929 [2025]).

2025Since defendant raises no challenge as to the validity of his appeal waiver, any contention that the sentence was unduly harsh or severe is foreclosed ( see People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 255-256 [2006]; People v Wheeler , 221 AD3d 1349, 1350 [3d Dept 2023]). [FN1] Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea, which survives the appeal waiver, is unpreserved because defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise the issue before County Court ( see People v Bailey , 232 AD3d 1031 , 1033 [3d Dept 2024], lv denied 43 NY3d 929 [2025]).

2023Regardless of the validity of his appeal waiver, defendant's challenge to his guilty plea is not precluded ( see People v Goodwalt , 205 AD3d 1070 , 1072 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1071 [2022]) and is preserved by his unsuccessful motion to withdraw his plea ( see People v Rodriguez , 206 AD3d 1383, 1384 [3d Dept 2022]).

2023Regardless of the validity of his appeal waiver, defendant's challenge to his guilty plea is not precluded ( see People v Goodwalt , 205 AD3d 1070 , 1072 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1071 [2022]) and is preserved by his unsuccessful motion to withdraw his plea ( see People v Rodriguez , 206 AD3d 1383, 1384 [3d Dept 2022]).

2022Defendant argues that County Court failed to determine whether to grant him youthful offender treatment in accordance with CPL 720.20 (2) and, as that issue implicates the legality of his sentence and survives an appeal waiver, we need not address his further challenge to the validity of his appeal waiver ( see People v Pacherille , 25 NY3d 1021, 1023-1024 [2015]; People v Carter , 191 AD3d 1168, 1170 [2021]).

2017As such, defendant’s valid waiver of appeal precludes his contentions that County Court abused its discretion in denying him youthful offender status and that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive (see People v Pacherille, 25 NY3d 1021, 1024 [2015]; People v Simon, 140 AD3d 1533, 1534 [2016]; People v Hernandez, 140 AD3d 1521, 1523 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 971 [2016]; People v Wright, 123 AD3d 1241, 1241 [2014]).

2021Accordingly, given the validity of his appeal waiver, defendant is foreclosed from challenging the denial of his suppression motion ( see People v Sanders , 25 NY3d 337, 342 [2015]; People v Kemp , 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; People v Danielson , 170 AD3d 1430 , 1431 [2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 1030 [2019], cert denied ___ US ___, 140 S Ct 486 [2019]; People v Saunders , 162 AD3d 1217 , 1218 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1128 [2018]).

2016County Court explained to defendant that the right to appeal was separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited by the plea, after which defendant stated that he understood his right to appeal and wished to waive it (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 341 [2015]; People v Forget, 136 AD3d 1115, 1116 [2016]; People v Ramos, 135 AD3d 1234, 1235 [2016]).

2014Defendant first challenges the validity of his appeal waiver and, “[c]ontrary to the People’s assertion, defendant was not required to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction in order to preserve” that challenge (People v Crump, 107 AD3d 1046, 1046 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1014 [2013]).

2014Defendant first challenges the validity of his appeal waiver and, “[c]ontrary to the People’s assertion, defendant was not required to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction in order to preserve” that challenge (People v Crump, 107 AD3d 1046, 1046 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1014 [2013]).

2014Accordingly, defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of his plea is foreclosed by his valid waiver of appeal (see People v Osgood, 111 AD3d at 1030; People v Durham, 110 AD3d 1145, 1145 [2013]).

2014Accordingly, defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of his plea is foreclosed by his valid waiver of appeal (see People v Osgood, 111 AD3d at 1030; People v Durham, 110 AD3d 1145, 1145 [2013]).

2014Initially, we are unpersuaded by defendant’s challenge to the validity of his appeal waiver; County Court adequately informed him that his right to appeal was separate from the other rights automatically forfeited upon a guilty plea, the written appeal waiver he executed in open court similarly informed him of that fact, and he was provided with ample time to confer with counsel to ensure that he fully understood the impact of his waiver (see People v Campbell, 114 AD3d 996, 997 [2014]; People v Osgood, 111 AD3d 1029 , 1030 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1089 [2014]).

2014Initially, we are unpersuaded by defendant’s challenge to the validity of his appeal waiver; County Court adequately informed him that his right to appeal was separate from the other rights automatically forfeited upon a guilty plea, the written appeal waiver he executed in open court similarly informed him of that fact, and he was provided with ample time to confer with counsel to ensure that he fully understood the impact of his waiver (see People v Campbell, 114 AD3d 996, 997 [2014]; People v Osgood, 111 AD3d 1029 , 1030 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1089 [2014]).

2014Initially, we are unpersuaded by defendant’s challenge to the validity of his appeal waiver; County Court adequately informed him that his right to appeal was separate from the other rights automatically forfeited upon a guilty plea, the written appeal waiver he executed in open court similarly informed him of that fact, and he was provided with ample time to confer with counsel to ensure that he fully understood the impact of his waiver (see People v Campbell, 114 AD3d 996, 997 [2014]; People v Osgood, 111 AD3d 1029 , 1030 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1089 [2014]).

2014Initially, we are unpersuaded by defendant’s challenge to the validity of his appeal waiver; County Court adequately informed him that his right to appeal was separate from the other rights automatically forfeited upon a guilty plea, the written appeal waiver he executed in open court similarly informed him of that fact, and he was provided with ample time to confer with counsel to ensure that he fully understood the impact of his waiver (see People v Campbell, 114 AD3d 996, 997 [2014]; People v Osgood, 111 AD3d 1029 , 1030 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1089 [2014]).

2013Having exercised his statutory right to plead guilty to all of the charges levied against him in the indictment and inasmuch as “no promise, plea agreement, reduced charge, or any other bargain or consideration” was given in exchange for that plea, defendant was improperly required to waive his right to appeal (People v Nicelli, 74 AD3d 1235, 1236 [2010]; see CPL 220.10 [2]; People v Meiner, 20 AD3d 778 , 778 n [2005]; People v Coles, 13 AD3d 665, 666 [2004]).

2013Having exercised his statutory right to plead guilty to all of the charges levied against him in the indictment and inasmuch as “no promise, plea agreement, reduced charge, or any other bargain or consideration” was given in exchange for that plea, defendant was improperly required to waive his right to appeal (People v Nicelli, 74 AD3d 1235, 1236 [2010]; see CPL 220.10 [2]; People v Meiner, 20 AD3d 778 , 778 n [2005]; People v Coles, 13 AD3d 665, 666 [2004]).

2013Contrary to the People’s assertion, defendant was not required to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction in order to preserve his challenge to the validity of his appeal waiver (see People v Baliraj, 101 AD3d 1175, 1176 [2012]; People v Lewis, 48 AD3d 880, 880-881 [2008]).

2013Contrary to the People’s assertion, defendant was not required to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction in order to preserve his challenge to the validity of his appeal waiver (see People v Baliraj, 101 AD3d 1175, 1176 [2012]; People v Lewis, 48 AD3d 880, 880-881 [2008]).

2013Having exercised his statutory right to plead guilty to all of the charges levied against him in the indictment and inasmuch as “no promise, plea agreement, reduced charge, or any other bargain or consideration” was given in exchange for that plea, defendant was improperly required to waive his right to appeal (People v Nicelli, 74 AD3d 1235, 1236 [2010]; see CPL 220.10 [2]; People v Meiner, 20 AD3d 778 , 778 n [2005]; People v Coles, 13 AD3d 665, 666 [2004]).

2013Having exercised his statutory right to plead guilty to all of the charges levied against him in the indictment and inasmuch as “no promise, plea agreement, reduced charge, or any other bargain or consideration” was given in exchange for that plea, defendant was improperly required to waive his right to appeal (People v Nicelli, 74 AD3d 1235, 1236 [2010]; see CPL 220.10 [2]; People v Meiner, 20 AD3d 778 , 778 n [2005]; People v Coles, 13 AD3d 665, 666 [2004]).

2013Contrary to the People’s assertion, defendant was not required to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction in order to preserve his challenge to the validity of his appeal waiver (see People v Baliraj, 101 AD3d 1175, 1176 [2012]; People v Lewis, 48 AD3d 880, 880-881 [2008]).

2013Contrary to the People’s assertion, defendant was not required to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction in order to preserve his challenge to the validity of his appeal waiver (see People v Baliraj, 101 AD3d 1175, 1176 [2012]; People v Lewis, 48 AD3d 880, 880-881 [2008]).

2026As a result, his arguments pertaining to his motion to suppress statements and physical evidence and his purportedly harsh and severe sentence are precluded from review ( see People v Jean- Pierre , 203 AD3d 1226, 1227-1228 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1033 [2022]; People v Nack , 200 AD3d 1197, 1199 [3d Dept 2021], lv denied 38 NY3d 1009 [2022]).

2026As a result, his arguments pertaining to his motion to suppress statements and physical evidence and his purportedly harsh and severe sentence are precluded from review ( see People v Jean- Pierre , 203 AD3d 1226, 1227-1228 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1033 [2022]; People v Nack , 200 AD3d 1197, 1199 [3d Dept 2021], lv denied 38 NY3d 1009 [2022]).

2024Nevertheless, this contention is unpreserved in the absence of an appropriate postallocution motion ( see People v Bailey , 224 AD3d 1044 , 1045 [3d Dept 2024]; People v Gayle , 221 AD3d at 1062 ), and the narrow [*2]exception to the preservation requirement does not apply ( see People v Loya , 215 AD3d 1181, 1183 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 929 [2023]).

2024Despite defendant's challenge to the validity of his appeal waiver, his sole remaining contention challenging the voluntariness of his plea — premised upon the timeliness and sufficiency of County Court's recitation of defendant's Boykin rights — survives his valid appeal waiver ( see People v Gayle , 221 AD3d 1061, 1062 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 41 NY3d 1002 [2024]).

2024Nevertheless, this contention is unpreserved in the absence of an appropriate postallocution motion ( see People v Bailey , 224 AD3d 1044 , 1045 [3d Dept 2024]; People v Gayle , 221 AD3d at 1062 ), and the narrow [*2]exception to the preservation requirement does not apply ( see People v Loya , 215 AD3d 1181, 1183 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 929 [2023]).

2022County Court advised defendant during the plea colloquy that an appeal waiver was a condition of his plea, explained that the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited by his guilty plea, and further clarified that certain issues would survive the appeal waiver ( see People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Sims , 207 AD3d 882, 883 [3d Dept 2022]; People v Hall , 204 AD3d 1228, 1228 [3d Dept 2022]).

2022County Court advised defendant during the plea colloquy that an appeal waiver was a condition of his plea, explained that the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited by his guilty plea, and further clarified that certain issues would survive the appeal waiver ( see People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Sims , 207 AD3d 882, 883 [3d Dept 2022]; People v Hall , 204 AD3d 1228, 1228 [3d Dept 2022]).

2022Defendant argues that County Court failed to determine whether to grant him youthful offender treatment in accordance with CPL 720.20 (2) and, as that issue implicates the legality of his sentence and survives an appeal waiver, we need not address his further challenge to the validity of his appeal waiver ( see People v Pacherille , 25 NY3d 1021, 1023-1024 [2015]; People v Carter , 191 AD3d 1168, 1170 [2021]).

2021Accordingly, given the validity of his appeal waiver, defendant is foreclosed from challenging the denial of his suppression motion ( see People v Sanders , 25 NY3d 337, 342 [2015]; People v Kemp , 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; People v Danielson , 170 AD3d 1430 , 1431 [2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 1030 [2019], cert denied ___ US ___, 140 S Ct 486 [2019]; People v Saunders , 162 AD3d 1217 , 1218 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1128 [2018]).

2020Nevertheless, in view of the plea colloquy, sentencing minutes and defendant's request, we deem it appropriate to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction and vacate defendant's guilty plea ( see People v Demkovich , 168 AD3d 1221 , 1221 [2019]; compare People v Cruz , 186 AD3d 932 , 933 [2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1112 [2020]; People v Edwards , 181 AD3d 1054 , 1056-1057 [2020], lvs denied 35 NY3d 1026 , 1029 [2020]).

2020Although defendant's contention survives regardless of the validity of his appeal waiver, it is unpreserved given that the record does not contain an appropriate postallocution motion ( see People v Leach , 26 NY3d 1154, 1154 [2016]; People v Smith , 188 AD3d 1357 , ___, 2020 NY Slip Op 06415, *1 [2020]; People v Rivera , 167 AD3d 1324 , 1324 [2018]) and the narrow exception to the preservation requirement does not apply ( see People v Pastor , 28 NY3d 1089, 1090-1091 [2016]).