People v. Espejo

Dec 28, 2016

2014-10296

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 339-342 [2015]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]). The defendant‘s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255-256; People v Guillebeaux, 136 AD3d 1055 [2016]).

However, the defendant‘s claim regarding the voluntariness of his plea survives his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]; People v Haywood, 122 AD3d 769, 769 [2014]). The decision to permit a defendant to withdraw a previously entered plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the court and generally will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Douglas, 83 AD3d 1092, 1092 [2011]). Contrary to the defendant‘s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, that branch of his motion which was to withdraw his plea of guilty. The record establishes that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered a plea of guilty (see People v Sougou, 26 NY3d 1052, 1054-1055 [2015]; People v Rodriguez, 142 AD3d 1189, 1189-1190 [2016]; People v Jemmott, 125 AD3d 1005, 1006 [2015]). Balkin, J.P., Dickerson, LaSalle and Connolly, JJ., concur.