Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gregory J. Thompson, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2011-04-29
Citations: 83 A.D.3d 1535
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gregory J. Thompson, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 83
Pages: 1535–1536

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gregory J. Thompson, Appellant.
[921 NYS2d 577]

Opinion:
Appeal from a judgment of the Orleans County Court (James P. Punch, J.), rendered April 19, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 110.00, 170.25). We reject defendant's contention that his waiver of the right to appeal was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). County Court " 'expressly ascertained from defendant that, as a condition of the plea, he was agreeing to waive his right to appeal, and the court did not conflate that right with those automatically forfeited by a guilty plea' " (People v Porter, 55 AD3d 1313 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 899 [2008]). Although the further contention of defendant that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered survives his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Bland, 27 AD3d 1052, 1052-1053 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 892 [2006]), defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review by failing to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Smith, 48 AD3d 1171 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 964 [2008]; Bland, 27 AD3d at 1052-1053). This case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; Smith, 48 AD3d at 1171).
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention concerning the failure to comply with the procedural requirements set forth in CPL 400.21 (see People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636, 637 [1983]; People v Vega, 49 AD3d 1185, 1186 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 965 [2008]). In any event, defendant waived strict compliance with the statute by admitting his commission of the prior felony conviction in open court (see Vega, 49 AD3d at 1186; People v Harris, 233 AD2d 959 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 1094 [1997]).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Present—Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Carli, Sconiers and Green, JJ.