Calendar Date: April 23, 2018Before: McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Aarons, Rumsey andPritzker, JJ.__________John Ferrara, Monticello, for appellant.Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Tracey A.Brunecz of counsel), for respondent.__________Aarons, J.Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of SchenectadyCounty (Sira, J.), rendered December 14, 2016, convictingdefendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of failure toregister or verify as a sex offender.Defendant, a risk level three sex offender, waivedindictment and agreed to be prosecuted pursuant to a superiorcourt information charging him with failure to register or verifyas a sex offender as required by Correction Law §§ 168-f (3) and168-t. The resulting plea agreement contemplated that defendantwould waive his right to appeal and plead guilty to the chargedcrime with the understanding that he would be incarcerated fornine months in the local jail. Following defendant’s guiltyplea, County Court imposed the agreed-upon sentence, which,defendant advises us, he has now served. This appeal ensued.Preliminarily, we agree with defendant that his waiver ofthe right to appeal is invalid. During its abbreviated colloquywith defendant, “County Court did not explain the separate anddistinct nature of the waiver or ascertain that defendant fullyunderstood its consequences” (People v Dumas, 155 AD3d 1256, 1256[2017] [citations omitted]; see People v Farrell, 156 AD3d 1062,1062 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1115 [2018]). Similarly, althoughdefendant executed a detailed written waiver in open court,County Court “made no attempt to ensure that defendant understoodthe content[s]” or ramifications thereof (People v Ortiz, 153AD3d 1049, 1049 [2017] [internal quotation marks, ellipsis andcitations omitted]; see People v Aubain, 152 AD3d 868, 869[2017]). Under these circumstances, defendant did not knowingly,intelligently and voluntarily waive his right to appeal (see e.g.People v Herbert, 147 AD3d 1208, 1208-1209 [2017]).Defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of hisplea is unpreserved for our review absent evidence of anappropriate postallocution motion (see People v Bailey, 158 AD3d948, 948 [2018]; People v Depugh, 158 AD3d 945, 945 [2018]).Contrary to defendant’s assertion, he did not “make anystatements during the plea colloquy that negated an essentialelement of the crime or otherwise cast doubt upon his guilt so asto trigger the narrow exception to the preservation rule” (Peoplev Park, 159 AD3d 1132, 1133 [2018]; see People v Joubert, 155AD3d 1255, 1256 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1116 [2018]). Finally,inasmuch as defendant has completed his agreed-upon, nine-monthjail sentence, his claim that such sentence was harsh andexcessive is moot (see People v Toft, 156 AD3d 1234, 1235[2017]).McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ., concur.
