People v. Knee

• Decision Date: 10 July 2019
• Docket Number: Ind. No. 19/16,2017-10911
• Citation: People v. Knee, 174 A.D.3d 646, 101 N.Y.S.3d 866(Mem) (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Charles KNEE, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

174 A.D.3d 646

101 N.Y.S.3d 866 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,

v.Charles KNEE, Appellant.

2017-10911

Ind. No. 19/16

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—March 22, 2019

July 10, 2019

Michael J. Annibale, Garden City, NY, for appellant.

Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (W. Thomas Hughes of counsel; Matthew C. Frankel on the brief), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Meryl J. Berkowitz, J.), rendered November 22, 2016, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was valid and enforceable.The record shows that the defendant was sufficiently advised of the nature of the right to appeal, and that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived that right (seePeople v. Duryea,116 A.D.3d 709, 710, 983 N.Y.S.2d 99;People v. Eccleston,113 A.D.3d 699, 699, 978 N.Y.S.2d 702 ).

The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal does not foreclose appellate review of his contention that he was deprived of his right to due process when the Supreme Court failed to make further inquiry to determine whether he violated a condition of the plea agreement requiring that he not violate the law or be arrested for violating the law (seePeople v. Cousar,128 A.D.3d 716, 716, 9 N.Y.S.3d 96;People v. Arrington,94 A.D.3d 903, 903, 941 N.Y.S.2d 877 ).However, this issue is unpreserved for appellate review because the defendant never objected to the adequacy of the inquiry conducted by the court and did not move to withdraw his plea (seePeople v. Cousar,128 A.D.3d at 716, 9 N.Y.S.3d 96;People v. Arrington,94 A.D.3d at 903, 941 N.Y.S.2d 877 ).In any event, the defendant did not deny his involvement in the postplea crime or argue that there was no legitimate basis for his arrest, and thus, the court did not err in failing to conduct further inquiry into the matter (seePeople v. Shih–Siang Shawn Liao,103 A.D.3d 757, 758, 959 N.Y.S.2d 447;People v. Billups,63 A.D.3d 750, 750, 881 N.Y.S.2d 445;People v. Huggins,45 A.D.3d 1380, 1380, 845 N.Y.S.2d 609 ).

The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (seePeople v. Lopez,6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145;People v.Batista, 167...