People v Beblowski

People v Beblowski 2015 NY Slip Op 03579 Decided on April 30, 2015 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: April 30, 2015
106248

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

v

TIMOTHY BEBLOWSKI, Appellant.

Calendar Date: March 26, 2015
Before: Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Rose and Devine, JJ.

Brian M. Callahan, Schenectady, for appellant.

Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Gerald A. Dwyer of counsel), for respondent.

Peters, P.J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Drago, J.), rendered February 25, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the second degree (three counts).

In satisfaction of a 25-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of burglary in the second degree and waived his right to appeal from the conviction and sentence. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant within the range contemplated by the plea agreement, namely, an aggregate prison term of eight years to be followed by postrelease supervision of 3½ years. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Defendant's contention "that his plea should be vacated due to County Court's failure to inquire as to a potential intoxication defense is not preserved for our review, as the record does not reflect that defendant made an appropriate postallocution motion" (People v Brown, 125 AD3d 1049, 1049 [2015]; see People v Duggins, 114 AD3d 1001, 1001-1002 [2014], lvs denied 23 NY3d 961, 962 [2014]). Defendant, in any case, gave no indication during the plea colloquy that he was impaired at the time that the burglaries occurred, admitted without hesitation that he had committed them, and "said nothing that would have warranted further inquiry by County Court" (People v Duggins, 114 AD3d at 1002; see People v Brown, 125 AD3d at 1049-1050). Finally, defendant does not dispute the validity of his appeal waiver. Although his ineffective assistance of counsel argument survives the appeal waiver to the extent that it [*2]implicates the voluntariness of his plea, it is also unpreserved for our review given the absence of an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Smith, 123 AD3d 1375, 1376 [2014]; People v Guyette, 121 AD3d 1430, 1431-1432 [2014]).

Lahtinen, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.