Opinion
2013-05-28
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard ALICEA, Defendant–Appellant.
Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Laura Boyd of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Vincent Rivellese of counsel), for respondent.
Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Laura Boyd of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Vincent Rivellese of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Brenda Soloff, J. at first plea; Michael R. Ambrecht, J. at second plea; Patricia M. Nunez, J. at sentencing), rendered July 7, 2009, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of four years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's unpreserved challenges to the validity of his plea do not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement ( see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988];see also People v. Murray, 15 N.Y.3d 725, 726–727, 906 N.Y.S.2d 521, 932 N.E.2d 877 [2010] ), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that, when viewed as a whole, the record of the two plea proceedings and the written plea agreement establish that defendant pleaded guilty with full knowledge of the consequences of his plea, including the prison and postrelease supervision terms he would be facing if he violated its conditions ( see e. g. People v. Thomas, 63 A.D.3d 642, 882 N.Y.S.2d 99 [1st Dept. 2009],lv. denied13 N.Y.3d 863, 891 N.Y.S.2d 697, 920 N.E.2d 102 [2009] ). The court's explanation of the plea conditions was objectively clear ( see People v. Cataldo, 39 N.Y.2d 578, 580, 384 N.Y.S.2d 763, 349 N.E.2d 863 [1976] ), and defendant had all the information he needed to “knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently choose among alternative courses of action” ( People v. Catu, 4 N.Y.3d 242, 245, 792 N.Y.S.2d 887, 825 N.E.2d 1081 [2005] ).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.