People v. GavidiaPeople v. Gavidia
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent because the County Court failed to properly advise him of all his constitutional rights under Boykin v Alabama (395 US 238 [1969]). Although this contention survives the defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]; People v Thomas, 148 AD3d 734 [2017]; People v May, 138 AD3d 1146 [2016]), it is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant failed to move to vacate his plea prior to the imposition of sentence or otherwise raise the issue in the County Court, although he had ample time to do so (see
Rivera, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.