People v Sczepankowski

People v Sczepankowski 2013 NY Slip Op 06404 Decided on October 3, 2013 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: October 3, 2013
104702

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

v

RICHARD SCZEPANKOWSKI, Appellant.

Calendar Date: September 4, 2013
Before: Peters, P.J., Rose, Lahtinen and Garry, JJ.


Michael I. Getz, Greenfield Center, for appellant.
Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady
(Gerald A. Dwyer of counsel), for respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Garry, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Hoye, J.), rendered September 7, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of driving while intoxicated.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant waived indictment, pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him with driving while intoxicated and waived his right to appeal, with the understanding that he would be sentenced to 1⅓ to 4 years in prison. County Court thereafter imposed the agreed-upon sentence. Defendant appeals.

We affirm. Contrary to defendant's contention, we find that he made a valid waiver of the right to appeal, as the plea allocution and the counseled written waiver executed in open court demonstrate that he voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence (see People v Jerome, 98 AD3d 1188, 1189 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 987 [2012]; People v Martinez-Velazquez, 89 AD3d 1318, 1319 [2011]). To the extent that defendant's claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel survives his appeal waiver, the claim is not preserved for our review as the record before us does not demonstrate that he moved to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Lazore, 102 AD3d 1017, 1017-1018 [2013]; People v Benson, 100 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2012]). [*2]

Peters, P.J., Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.