PEOPLE v. PETERSON (2006)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.18[1] ).   Contrary to the contention of defendant, the record establishes that his waiver of the right to appeal was made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145).   County Court thoroughly reviewed the consequences of the waiver with defendant, defendant expressed his understanding of those consequences and waived the right to appeal both orally and in writing.   Furthermore, the plea bargain was reasonable.   We reject defendant's contention that the waiver of the right to appeal is against public policy (see generally People v. Muniz, 91 N.Y.2d 570, 573-574, 673 N.Y.S.2d 358, 696 N.E.2d 182).

 Although the contention of defendant that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently entered survives the waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Holifield, 34 A.D.3d 1316, 824 N.Y.S.2d 507;  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), by failing to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment, defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review (see DeJesus, 248 A.D.2d at 1023, 670 N.Y.S.2d 140).   In any event, we conclude that defendant's contention is without merit (see generally People v. Seeber, 4 N.Y.3d 780, 780-781, 793 N.Y.S.2d 826, 826 N.E.2d 797).   The contention of defendant that his factual colloquy was insufficient, thereby rendering his plea involuntary, is not supported by the record, which establishes that defendant admitted the underlying factual allegations of the crime and responded to questions regarding details of the crime.

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

MEMORANDUM: