People v Conley

People v Conley 2016 NY Slip Op 00540 Decided on January 28, 2016 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: January 28, 2016
106326

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

v

JAMES CONLEY, Appellant.

Calendar Date: December 15, 2015
Before: McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ.

John Ferrara, Monticello, for appellant, and appellant

pro se.

James R. Farrell, District Attorney, Monticello (Michael J. Andreani of counsel), for respondent.

McCarthy, J.P.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (McGuire, J.), rendered November 12, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree and incest in the first degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree and incest in the first degree and waived his right to appeal. County Court thereafter sentenced him to two concurrent prison terms of 18 years, to be followed by 20 years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Defendant's valid and uncontested waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of conviction and sentence precludes both his challenge to the agreed-upon sentence as harsh and excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]; People v Morrison, 106 AD3d 1201, 1202 [2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 1065 [2014]) and his challenge to County Court's denial of his application to redact certain information contained in the presentence investigation report (see People v Joslin, 130 AD3d 1093, 1093-1094 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1009 [2015]; People v Guyette, 121 AD3d 1430, 1431 [2014]). To the extent that defendant argues in his pro se brief that his plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary because it was coerced, this issue is unpreserved for our review as the record does not reflect that he made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Colon, 106 AD3d 1367, 1368 [2013]; People v Morelli, 46 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 814 [2008]). Further, the narrow exception to the preservation rule is inapplicable here, as defendant did not make any statements during the plea colloquy that cast doubt upon his guilt or otherwise called into question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Kormos, 126 AD3d 1039, 1040 [2015]; People v Cajigas, 123 AD3d 1299, 1300 [2014]). Defendant's remaining claims, to the extent they are properly before us, have been [*2]considered and found to be without merit.

Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.