PEOPLE v. AGUAYO (2007)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20[1] ).   Contrary to the contention of defendant, the record establishes that his waiver of the right to appeal was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145;  People v. Peterson, 35 A.D.3d 1195, 825 N.Y.S.2d 622 [2006] ).   We reject defendant's further contention that the waiver of the right to appeal is against public policy (see Peterson, 35 A.D.3d 1195, 825 N.Y.S.2d 622;  see generally People v. Muniz, 91 N.Y.2d 570, 573-575, 673 N.Y.S.2d 358, 696 N.E.2d 182).   Although the further contention of defendant that his plea was not voluntary survives the waiver of the right to appeal, defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction and thus failed to preserve that contention for our review (see Peterson, 35 A.D.3d 1195, 825 N.Y.S.2d 622;  People v. DeJesus, 248 A.D.2d 1023, 670 N.Y.S.2d 140, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 878, 678 N.Y.S.2d 26, 700 N.E.2d 564).   In any event, defendant's contention is without merit.   Contrary to the contention of defendant, there is no requirement that he recite the facts underlying the crime to which he pleaded guilty (see People v. Seeber, 4 N.Y.3d 780, 781, 793 N.Y.S.2d 826, 826 N.E.2d 797), and the record establishes that he confirmed County Court's recitation of those facts (see Peterson, 35 A.D.3d 1195, 825 N.Y.S.2d 622).   Finally, the waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses his contention that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement to the police (see People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754;  People v. Stewart, 35 A.D.3d 1168, 825 N.Y.S.2d 404 [2006] ), as well as his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 255, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145;  People v. Lococo, 92 N.Y.2d 825, 827, 677 N.Y.S.2d 57, 699 N.E.2d 416).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: