Calendar Date: May 3, 2018Before: McCarthy, J.P., Devine, Clark, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ.__________Samantha E. Koolen, Albany, for appellant.James R. Farrell, District Attorney, Monticello (Meagan K.Galligan of counsel), for respondent.__________Clark, J.Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of SullivanCounty (LaBuda, J.), rendered April 1, 2015, convicting defendantupon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the seconddegree.In satisfaction of a six-count indictment, defendantpleaded guilty to burglary in the second degree and purportedlywaived his right to appeal. County Court thereafter sentencedhim, as a second felony offender, to five years in prison, to befollowed by five years of postrelease supervision, with theprison sentence to run consecutively to a prison sentence he wasalready serving. Defendant now appeals.Initially, we agree with defendant that his appeal waiverwas not valid. County Court failed to distinguish the right toappeal from those rights automatically forfeited by a guilty plea(see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Blanco, 156AD3d 945, 946 [2017]). Further, although defendant executed awritten waiver, County Court did not “ensure that defendantunderstood the content or consequences of the appeal waiver”(People v Williams, 132 AD3d 1155, 1155 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d1157 [2016]; accord People v Cotto, 156 AD3d 1063, 1063 [2017]).Defendant also contends that his guilty plea was notknowing, intelligent and voluntary because County Court failed toinform him of the constitutional rights he was giving up bypleading guilty. This contention is not preserved for ourreview, inasmuch as the record does not reflect that he made anappropriate postallocution motion (see People v Conceicao, 26NY3d 375, 382 [2015]; People v Evans, 156 AD3d 1246, 1246-1247[2017]; People v Bond, 146 AD3d 1155, 1156 [2017], lv denied 29NY3d 1076 [2017]). Moreover, defendant did not make anystatements during the plea allocution that cast doubt on hisguilt or otherwise called into question the voluntariness of hisplea, so as to trigger the narrow exception to the preservationrequirement (see People v Duvall, 157 AD3d 1060, 1061 [2018];People v Evans, 156 AD3d at 1247). In any event, we would findthat County Court adequately advised defendant of theconstitutional rights he was forfeiting by pleading guilty andthat defendant affirmed his understanding thereof (see People vDuvall, 157 AD3d at 1061; People v Bond, 146 AD3d at 1156).Lastly, we are unpersuaded by defendant’s contention that hissentence is harsh and excessive because County Court directedthat his prison term run consecutively to, rather thanconcurrently with, a prison term that he was already serving.The sentence was in accordance with the plea agreement, and ourreview of the record reveals no abuse of discretion orextraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of thesentence in the interest of justice (see People v Wolcott, 154AD3d 1001, 1002 [2017]; People v Eickhoff, 151 AD3d 1120, 1120-1121 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1126 [2017]).McCarthy, J.P., Devine, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ., concur.ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.ENTER:Robert D. MaybergerClerk of the Court
