People v. Tenesaca

199 A.D.3d 941

154 N.Y.S.3d 452 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Silvio TENESACA, appellant.

2019–13163

Ind. No. 4/19

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—October 22, 2021

November 17, 2021

Del Atwell. East Hampton, NY, for appellant.

Robert V. Tendy, District Attorney, Carmel, NY (David A. Rosenberg of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, LARA J. GENOVESI, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (James T. Rooney, J.), rendered November 6, 2019, convicting him of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree and driving while intoxicated, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to vehicular manslaughter in the second degree and driving while intoxicated and was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. On appeal, he challenges certain of the County Court's suppression rulings and its purported failure to conduct a Sandoval hearing (see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413 ) at which the defendant was present. He also argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his attorney was unsuccessful in moving to suppress a toxicology report. The People assert that appellate review of the defendant's contentions is precluded by his waiver of the right to appeal.

The record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 339–342, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256–257, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his challenges to the County Court's suppression determinations (see People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754 ; People v. Yanes–Santos, 189 A.D.3d 1621, 1621–1622, 135 N.Y.S.3d 272 ), the purported Sandoval error (see People v. Jessamy, 137 A.D.3d 1056, 28 N.Y.S.3d 376 ; People v. Henderson, 233 A.D.2d 253, 253–254, 650 N.Y.S.2d 640 ), and his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, since his claim does not implicate the voluntariness of his plea (see People v. Williams, 165 A.D.3d 1183, 1183, 84 N.Y.S.3d 366 ; People v. Castillo, 161 A.D.3d 1099, 1100, 73 N.Y.S.3d 890 ).

MASTRO, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, GENOVESI and DOWLING, JJ., concur.