PEOPLE v. CARCAMO (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (James A. McCarty, J.), rendered May 11, 2023, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Generally, a defendant must preserve for appellate review a challenge to the validity of a plea of guilty by moving to withdraw it or otherwise objecting to its entry prior to the imposition of sentence (see People v. Williams, 27 N.Y.3d 212, 214, 32 N.Y.S.3d 17, 51 N.E.3d 528).  In this case, the defendant's challenge to the validity of his plea of guilty is unpreserved for appellate review since he did not move to withdraw his plea of guilty or otherwise object to its entry prior to the imposition of sentence.  Contrary to the defendant's contention, the narrow exception to the preservation rule does not apply here, as the defendant's plea allocution did not cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of the plea (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5).  In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see generally People v. Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d 375, 382–383, 23 N.Y.S.3d 124, 44 N.E.3d 199).

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. Batista, 167 A.D.3d 69, 86 N.Y.S.3d 492).  The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of the defendant's contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145;  People v. Batista, 167 A.D.3d at 75, 86 N.Y.S.3d 492).

DILLON, J.P., WARHIT, LANDICINO and HOM, JJ., concur.