Court Opinion

ID: 2807390
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-06-11 14:09:27.716733+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:22.828813
License: Public Domain

*1201
   
  Rose, J.
 

  Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.), rendered January 9, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted murder in the second degree.
 

  Defendant was charged in a nine-count indictment with attempted murder in the first and second degrees, rape in the first degree, unlawful imprisonment in the first degree and assault in the first degree (four counts) and second degree after he brutally attacked his wife. After a suppression hearing, County Court determined that defendant’s statements to law enforcement following the attack were admissible. Defendant ultimately pleaded guilty to attempted murder in the second degree in full satisfaction of the indictment and waived his right to appeal, both orally and in writing. County Court then sentenced defendant, in accordance with the plea agreement, to a prison term of 15 years, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. He now appeals.
 

  Initially, defendant argues that County Court’s suppression ruling was erroneous, and that such an argument may be made notwithstanding his waiver of appeal. We cannot agree. Defendant’s general waiver of appeal from “any aspect of this matter” precludes his challenge to the suppression ruling
  
   (see People v Kemp, 94
  
  NY2d 831, 833 [1999];
  
   People v Stone,
  
  105 AD3d 1094, 1095 [2013];
  
   People v Colon,
  
  101 AD3d 1161, 1161-1162 [2012],
  
   lv denied
  
  21 NY3d 1003 [2013]).
  
   *
  
  To the extent that defendant’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel survives his appeal waiver, he failed to preserve it with an appropriate postallocution motion
  
   (see People v Smith,
  
  121 AD3d 1131, 1132 [2014],
  
   lv denied
  
  24 NY3d 1123 [2015];
  
   People v Boone,
  
  101 AD3d 1358, 1359 [2012],
  
   lv denied
  
  20 NY3d 1096 [2013]). Finally, defendant’s valid appeal waiver also precludes his challenge to the severity of the sentence
  
   (see People v Dale,
  
  115 AD3d 1002, 1007 [2014];
  
   People v Colon,
  
  101 AD3d at 1162;
  
   People v Griffin,
  
  100 AD3d 1153, 1154 [2012],
  
   lv denied
  
  20 NY3d 1011 [2013]).
 

  Peters, P.J., Lahtinen and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
 

  Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
 

   *
  

   Although not raised by defendant, we agree with the People that his appeal waiver was valid (see
   
    People v Lopez,
   
   6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006];
   
    People v Burritt,
   
   127 AD3d 1433, 1434 [2015];
   
    People v Balbuena,
   
   123 AD3d 1384, 1385 [2014]).