PEOPLE v. TAYLOR (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Robert J. Prisco, J., at plea;  Craig S. Brown, J., at sentence), rendered February 8, 2022, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary is unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise the issue before the County Court (see People v. Argueta, 233 A.D.3d 703, 703–704, 221 N.Y.S.3d 229;  People v. Pray, 183 A.D.3d 842, 842, 124 N.Y.S.3d 59).  In any event, the defendant's contention cannot be reviewed on direct appeal, as it is based on matter dehors the record (see People v. Walker, 189 A.D.3d 1619, 1619, 138 N.Y.S.3d 591;  People v. Thomas, 150 A.D.3d 770, 771, 53 N.Y.S.3d 195;  People v. Wornell, 112 A.D.3d 656, 976 N.Y.S.2d 175).  The defendant's related contention that the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel rendered his plea unknowing, unintelligent, and involuntary is also based on matter dehors the record and, thus, likewise is not reviewable on direct appeal (see People v. Chavis, 218 A.D.3d 1368, 1370, 194 N.Y.S.3d 393;  People v. Wornell, 112 A.D.3d at 656, 976 N.Y.S.2d 175).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970;  People v. Vantassell, 205 A.D.3d 739, 740, 165 N.Y.S.3d 742).  The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255–256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145).

DILLON, J.P., WARHIT, VENTURA and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.