PEOPLE v. COLONNA (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Teresa K. Corrigan, J.), rendered May 29, 2024, convicting him of attempted assault in the first degree and operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The record demonstrates that the defendant 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. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145).  Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court adequately explained, and the defendant acknowledged that he understood, that the waiver of the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the trial rights that would be automatically forfeited as a consequence of his plea of guilty (see People v. Stevens, 203 A.D.3d 958, 959, 163 N.Y.S.3d 615;  People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d 133, 137, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297).  The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his challenge to the hearing court's suppression determination (see People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 341–342, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344;  People v. Miles, 189 A.D.3d 890, 891, 133 N.Y.S.3d 485;  People v. Mack, 168 A.D.3d 1100, 1102, 92 N.Y.S.3d 404), and his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see People v. Javiel, 231 A.D.3d 967, 967, 219 N.Y.S.3d 139;  People v. Heath, 218 A.D.3d 693, 694, 192 N.Y.S.3d 253).

The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty, since the record affirmatively demonstrates that the defendant's plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v. Stamps, 188 A.D.3d 1105, 1105, 132 N.Y.S.3d 651;  People v. Mack, 168 A.D.3d at 1101, 92 N.Y.S.3d 404).  The defendant's contentions that he was coerced into pleading guilty and that he did not understand the nature of the plea proceeding are belied by his statements under oath at the plea proceeding (see People v. Fellows, 208 A.D.3d 682, 683, 171 N.Y.S.3d 909;  People v. Etienne, 193 A.D.3d 971, 972, 145 N.Y.S.3d 588;  People v. Gedin, 46 A.D.3d 701, 702, 847 N.Y.S.2d 231).  Moreover, the accurate statements by the court as to the defendant's maximum possible sentence exposure if he were convicted after trial did not constitute coercion (see People v. Fellows, 208 A.D.3d at 683, 171 N.Y.S.3d 909;  People v. Legette, 191 A.D.3d 900, 901, 138 N.Y.S.3d 390).

Contrary to the defendant's further contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel in connection with the negotiation of his plea (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584;  People v. Stamps, 188 A.D.3d at 1105, 132 N.Y.S.3d 651).

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., TAYLOR, VENTURA and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.