PEOPLE v. SNYDER (2025)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Craig Carriero, J.), rendered June 26, 2023, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree (two counts).

In satisfaction of a 20–count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree and waived his right to appeal.  Consistent with the terms of the plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to two concurrent prison terms of 20 years, to be followed by 15 years of postrelease supervision.  Defendant appeals.

We affirm.  Contrary to defendant's contention, we find that his waiver of his right to appeal is valid.  Defendant was advised that the appeal waiver was a condition of the plea agreement and County Court explained the separate and distinct nature of the waiver and enumerated certain appellate issues that survive the waiver, and defendant affirmed his understanding thereof (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006];  People v. Patterson, 228 A.D.3d 1138, 1139, 213 N.Y.S.3d 549 [3d Dept. 2024]).  Defendant also executed a written waiver that similarly advised defendant of his rights, acknowledging that he had read the waiver, discussed it with counsel and had no questions regarding it (see People v. Cali, 229 A.D.3d 940, 941, 215 N.Y.S.3d 222 [3d Dept. 2024];  People v. Delosh, 227 A.D.3d 1276, 1276–1277, 212 N.Y.S.3d 464 [3d Dept. 2024]).  “Although defendant acknowledged his guilt prior to waiving his right to appeal, the court did not accept his plea until after defendant was sufficiently advised of and waived his appellate rights” (People v. Muller, 217 A.D.3d 1269, 1270, 192 N.Y.S.3d 306 [3d Dept. 2023] [citation omitted], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 1093, 204 N.Y.S.3d 793, 228 N.E.3d 606 [2024]).  Accordingly, we find that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v. Cali, 229 A.D.3d at 941–942, 215 N.Y.S.3d 222;  People v. Delosh, 227 A.D.3d at 1277, 212 N.Y.S.3d 464).

Defendant contends that his plea was involuntary because he was not timely advised of his Boykin rights and County Court did not inquire if he had any defenses to the charges prior to accepting his plea.  Although these claims may be raised regardless of the valid appeal waiver, they are unpreserved for our review absent evidence of an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v. Taylor, 221 A.D.3d 1191, 1192, 197 N.Y.S.3d 766 [3d Dept. 2023];  People v. Gayle, 221 A.D.3d 1061, 1062, 199 N.Y.S.3d 720 [3d Dept. 2023], lv denied 41 N.Y.3d 1002, 213 N.Y.S.3d 223, 236 N.E.3d 1242 [2024]) and the narrow exception to the preservation requirement was not triggered (see People v. Loya, 215 A.D.3d 1181, 1183, 187 N.Y.S.3d 444 [3d Dept. 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 929, 192 N.Y.S.3d 502, 213 N.E.3d 644 [2023];  People v. Robert, 214 A.D.3d 1085, 1086–1087, 184 N.Y.S.3d 488 [3d Dept. 2023], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 1156, 190 N.Y.S.3d 699, 211 N.E.3d 1152 [2023]).  Finally, defendant's challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution is precluded by his appeal waiver and is also similarly unpreserved for our review (see People v. Nolan, 224 A.D.3d 996, 997, 202 N.Y.S.3d 832 [3d Dept. 2024], lv denied 42 N.Y.3d 929, 216 N.Y.S.3d 93, 240 N.E.3d 812 [2024];  People v. Booth, 221 A.D.3d 1283, 1284, 200 N.Y.S.3d 501 [3d Dept. 2023]).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

McShan, J.

Egan Jr., J.P., Aarons, Fisher and Mackey, JJ., concur.