People v Bynum, 2024 NY Slip Op 03491 [228 AD3d 953]
June 26, 2024
Appellate Division, Second Department
[*1]
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Richard E. Bynum, Appellant.
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Genevieve M. Cahill of counsel), for appellant.
Raymond A. Tierney, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Caren C. Manzello and Michelle Kaszuba of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Anthony S. Senft, Jr., J.), rendered July 13, 2022, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Based on the totality of the circumstances, including the defendant’s age, experience, and background, the waiver of the right to appeal in this case was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent ( see People v Thomas , 34 NY3d 545 , 559-563 [2019]; People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248 , 254-255 [2006]; People v Hill , 216 AD3d 817 [2023]).
The defendant’s contention that his plea was involuntary is unpreserved for appellate review as he did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise the issue before the County Court ( see People v Peque , 22 NY3d 168 , 182 [2013]; People v Lopez , 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, this is not one of the rare cases where the defendant lacked a reasonable opportunity to object to a fundamental defect in the plea which was clear on the face of the record and to which the court’s attention should have been instantly drawn ( see People v Williams , 27 NY3d 212 , 221-222 [2016]; People v Karadag , 181 AD3d 620 , 620 [2020]).
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). Barros, J.P., Chambers, Voutsinas and Ventura, JJ., concur..