State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: September 29, 2016 107154 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GEOREL LLOYD,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: September 8, 2016

Before: Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch, Rose and Aarons, JJ.

__________

Aaron A. Louridas, Delmar, for appellant.

Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H.

Willis of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Aarons, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Coccoma, J.),

rendered May 15, 2012 in Schenectady County, convicting defendant

upon his plea of guilty of the crime of murder in the second

degree. 

Defendant pleaded guilty to murder in the second degree

after he fatally shot a young man. As part of the plea

agreement, he waived his right to appeal both orally and in

writing. He was subsequently sentenced, in accordance with the

terms of the plea agreement, to 20 years to life in prison. 

Defendant now appeals.

Initially, we find that defendant's waiver of the right to

appeal was invalid inasmuch as he was not advised that this right
-2- 107154 

was separate and distinct from the other rights that he was

forfeiting by pleading guilty (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248,

256 [2006]; People v Gonzalez, 138 AD3d 1353, 1354 [2016]; People

v Lemon, 137 AD3d 1422, 1423 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1135

[2016]). Although his appeal waiver, even if valid, would not

preclude his challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea,

this challenge has not been preserved for our review as the

record does not disclose that he made an appropriate

postallocution motion (see People v Larock, 139 AD3d 1241, 1242

[2016], lv denied ___ NY3d ___ [Aug. 10, 2016]; People v Daniels,

139 AD3d 1256, 1256 [2016]). Notably, the exception to the

preservation requirement is inapplicable here as defendant did

not make any statements during the plea proceedings that cast

doubt upon his guilt (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665-666

[1988]; People v Goldman, 139 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2016]; People v

Smith, 123 AD3d 1375, 1376 [2014], lv denied 26 NY3d 935 [2015]). 

Defendant's further contention that he was denied the effective

assistance of counsel is, to the extent that it impacts the

voluntariness of his plea, similarly unpreserved in the absence

of an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Perkins,

140 AD3d 1401, 1402-1403 [2016]; People v Beverly, 137 AD3d 1421,

1422 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1128 [2016]). Finally, contrary

to defendant's claim, we do not find that the sentence is harsh

or excessive. Notwithstanding defendant's young age, difficult

childhood and lack of criminal record, the crime was both violent

and senseless in nature, and the sentence, which was less than

the statutorily authorized maximum (see Penal Law § 70.00 [2]

[a]; [3] [a] [i]), was agreed to by defendant as part of the plea

agreement. Thus, we find no extraordinary circumstances or any

abuse of discretion warranting a modification of the sentence in

the interest of justice (see People v Benson, 119 AD3d 1145,

1148-1149 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1118 [2015]).

Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch and Rose, JJ., concur.
-3- 107154 

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court