State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: July 31, 2014 104063 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

OMAR WHITE,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: May 29, 2014

Before: Peters, P.J., Rose, Egan Jr., Lynch and Devine, JJ.

__________

M. Joe Landry, Schenectady, for appellant, and appellant

pro se.

Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Gerald A.

Dwyer of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Peters, P.J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady

County (Drago, J.), rendered January 28, 2011, convicting

defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the

second degree.

In full satisfaction of a 37-count indictment, defendant

pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree and waived his

right to appeal. Prior to sentencing, defendant sent a letter to

County Court expressing his desire to withdraw his plea –

contending that defense counsel had pressured him into pleading

guilty and that he had not been provided with meaningful

representation. Following a colloquy with defendant, County

Court denied his request and thereafter sentenced him, as a
-2- 104063 

second felony offender, to 12 years in prison, to be followed by

five years of postrelease supervision, and he was ordered to pay

restitution. Defendant appeals.

We affirm. Contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude

that he made a valid waiver of the right to appeal, as the plea

allocution and signed written waiver demonstrate that defendant

knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to

appeal his conviction and sentence (see People v Torres, 110 AD3d

1119, 1119 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1044 [2013]; People v

Marshall, 108 AD3d 884, 884 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 957

[2013]). Furthermore, his valid waiver of the right to appeal

precludes his claim that the sentence imposed is harsh and

excessive (see People v Fling, 112 AD3d 1001, 1002 [2013], lv

denied ___ NY3d ___ [June 9, 2014]; People v Passino, 104 AD3d

1060, 1061 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1157 [2014]).

Defendant further argues that his plea was not knowingly,

intelligently and voluntarily entered due to the fact that, while

he was informed at the time of his plea that a period of

postrelease supervision would be imposed, he was unaware of its

duration. However, inasmuch as defendant was advised by County

Court at the outset of the sentencing proceeding that his

sentence would include five years of postrelease supervision and

he did not raise this issue, his challenge to the voluntariness

of his plea is not preserved for our review (see People v Murray,

15 NY3d 725, 726-727 [2010]; People v Lee, 80 AD3d 1072, 1073

[2011], lvs denied 16 NY3d 832, 833 [2011]). Finally,

defendant's claim that the amount of restitution ordered is not

supported by the record is also unpreserved for our review in

light of his failure to request a restitution hearing or

otherwise contest the amount of the award at sentencing (see

People v Bressard, 112 AD3d 988, 989 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d

1137 [2014]; People v Empey, 73 AD3d 1387, 1389 [2010], lv denied

15 NY3d 804 [2010]). In any event, the victim impact statement

contained adequate support for the amount ordered (see People v

Thomas, 71 AD3d 1231, 1232 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 893 [2010]).

Rose, Egan Jr., Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.
-3- 104063 

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court