People v. OrtizPeople v. Ortiz
- Reporters:
- ,
The defendant‘s contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw the plea (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; People v Pryor, 11 AD3d 565 [2004]). In any event, the plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17 [1983]). The defendant‘s postplea assertion regarding the defense of insanity did not warrant vacatur of his plea of guilty (see People v Bunn, 79 AD3d 1143 [2010]).
The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, as defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).
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 248, 255 [2006]; People v Sanders, 112 AD3d 748 [2013]). Mastro, J.P., Hall, Austin, Sgroi and Duffy, JJ., concur.