People v. Arsenault

2022 NY Slip Op 04307

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: July 6, 2022
• Docket: 2021-05527
• Status: Published

Opinion

People v Arsenault (2022 NY Slip Op 04307)

People v Arsenault

2022 NY Slip Op 04307

Decided on July 6, 2022

Appellate Division, Second 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 on July 6, 2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

2021-05527

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Christopher R. Arsenault, appellant. (S.C.I. No. 30/20)

Yasmin Daley Duncan, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Edward T. McLoughlin, J.), rendered June 30, 2021, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 340-342; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256-257; People v Morrow, 198 AD3d 922, 923).

Although the defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent survives his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Cardona, 177 AD3d 647, 648), the defendant failed to preserve that contention for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise this issue before the County Court (see People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168, 182; People v Olmos, 199 AD3d 711). In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant's plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17).

The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255).

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., CHAMBERS, CHRISTOPHER and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Maria T. Fasulo

Clerk of the Court