PEOPLE v. MORROW (2008)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (De Rosa, J.), rendered May 9, 2006, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 Contrary to the defendant's contention, he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Saunders, 19 A.D.3d 744, 796 N.Y.S.2d 446;  People v. Ciatto, 290 A.D.2d 560, 737 N.Y.S.2d 104;  People v. Walsh, 243 A.D.2d 590, 665 N.Y.S.2d 514).   Although the waiver did not preclude review of the defendant's claim that his plea was not voluntarily or knowingly made, this claim is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground (see People v. Hussain, 309 A.D.2d 818, 765 N.Y.S.2d 526;  People v. Harrell, 288 A.D.2d 489, 735 N.Y.S.2d 392;  People v. Sierra, 256 A.D.2d 598, 683 N.Y.S.2d 563).

 The defendant's valid and unrestricted written waiver of the right to appeal, as part of his plea agreement, precludes appellate review of his claim that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. Ramos, 21 A.D.3d 1125, 801 N.Y.S.2d 155, affd. 7 N.Y.3d 737, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222), and that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v. Dixon, 41 A.D.3d 861, 841 N.Y.S.2d 314;  People v. Demosthene, 2 A.D.3d 874, 769 N.Y.S.2d 746).   To the extent the defendant contends that his counsel was ineffective such that the voluntariness of his plea was affected, this contention is without merit (see Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203;  Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674;  People v. McDonald, 1 N.Y.3d 109, 113-115, 769 N.Y.S.2d 781, 802 N.E.2d 131).