People v. ThomasPeople v. Thomas
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant validly waived her right to appeal (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337 [2015]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 254 [2006]). The defendant contends that her plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent because the County Court failed to advise her of all of her constitutional rights under Boykin v Alabama (395 US 238 [1969]). Although this contention survives her valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]; People v May, 138 AD3d 1146, 1146 [2016]), it is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant failed to move to vacate her plea prior to the imposition of sentence or otherwise raise the issue before the County Court (see
The defendant‘s contention that she was improperly adjudicated a second felony offender is precluded by her valid appeal waiver, inasmuch as her challenge goes to the County Court‘s compliance with procedures to determine the defendant‘s predicate felony status, rather than the legality of the sentence itself (see People v Hicks, 134 AD3d 854 [2015]). Leventhal, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Connolly, JJ., concur.