Crimes - Sentence - Enhanced Sentence - Failure to Truthfully Answer Questions during Probation Interview

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lisa Grey, J.), rendered May 31, 2022, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

"An enhanced sentence may be imposed on a defendant who, in violation of an express condition of a plea agreement, has failed to truthfully answer questions during a probation department interview" (People v Guzman-Hernandez, 135 AD3d 957, 957 [2016]; see People v Hicks, 98 NY2d 185, 187 [2002]). "Due process, however, requires that, before imposing an enhanced sentence, the court conduct an inquiry sufficient for it to determine that the defendant indeed violated the plea condition" (People v Guzman-Hernandez, 135 AD3d at 957; see People v Valencia, 3 NY3d 714, 715 [2004]; People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 712 [1993]). Here, the Supreme Court properly imposed an enhanced sentence (see People v Guzman-Hernandez, 135 AD3d at 957-958).

The record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545 [2019]; People v Batista, 167 AD3d 69 [2018]). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of the defendant's contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Batista, 167 AD3d at 75).

Defense counsel's conduct at sentencing did not deprive the defendant of the effective assistance of counsel (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]). Dillon, J.P., Ford, Dowling and Quirk, JJ., concur.