People v. Padilla-Zuniga

• Decision Date: 12 October 2022
• Docket Number: 2021-05210,Ind. No. 300/20
• Citation: 174 N.Y.S.3d 896 (Mem)
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Juan PADILLA–ZUNIGA, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

174 N.Y.S.3d 896 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Juan PADILLA–ZUNIGA, appellant.

2021-05210

Ind. No. 300/20

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

Submitted—September 21, 2022

October 12, 2022

N. Scott Banks, Hempstead, NY (Tammy Feman and Rachel S. Rambo of counsel), for appellant.

Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Tammy J. Smiley and Kevin C. King of counsel), for respondent.

FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P., ANGELA G. IANNACCI, PAUL WOOTEN, LILLIAN WAN, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robert G. Bogle, J.), rendered July 7, 2021, convicting him of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree, aggravated driving while intoxicated, and leaving the scene of an accident without reporting, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ; People v. Stevens, 203 A.D.3d 958, 958–959, 163 N.Y.S.3d 615 ). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his objection to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see People v. Headley, 197 A.D.3d 1329, 1330, 151 N.Y.S.3d 905 ).

Although the defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal does not preclude appellate review of his challenge to the voluntariness of the plea (see People v. Istvan, 180 A.D.3d 804, 117 N.Y.S.3d 694 ), or his contention that the Supreme Court improperly imposed an enhanced sentence (see People v. Gregory, 140 A.D.3d 1088, 1089, 33 N.Y.S.3d 736 ), those contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to reach those issues in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15[6][a] ; People v. Kundilakkandi, 202 A.D.3d 1107, 159 N.Y.S.3d 915 ; People v. Mejia, 195 A.D.3d 1043, 1044, 150 N.Y.S.3d 731 ).

CONNOLLY, J.P., IANNACCI, WOOTEN and WAN, JJ., concur.