Ordered that the: judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that the court should have conducted a further inquiry at sentencing in light of his assertion of innocence in the presentence investigation report is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v Tinsley, 32 AD3d 447; People v Steed, 133 AD2d 433). The rare case exception to the preservation requirement is inapplicable ( see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666; People v Mead, 27 AD3d 767, 767-768). In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant's plea of guilty was valid ( see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666; People v Lewis, 61 NY2d 9, 17).
The defendant's claim that the court erred in failing to, sua sponte, order an examination to determine if he had a clear head and understood the plea proceeding is without merit ( see People v Ramirez, 29 AD3d 1022; People v Pryor, 11 AD3d 565, 566; People v Gomez, 256 AD2d 356; People v Rowley, 222 AD2d 718).
It is unnecessary to review the defendant's challenge to his waiver of his right to appeal since the issues raised on this appeal would not have been foreclosed from review by a valid waiver of right to appeal ( cf. People v Stewart, 30 AD3d 624).