Opinion
2018–02883 Ind.No. 3224/15
10-21-2020
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Ronald BARROW, Appellant.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Dalourny Nemorin of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Sarah G. Pitts of counsel), for respondent.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Dalourny Nemorin of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Sarah G. Pitts of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin P. Murphy, J.), rendered August 23, 2017, convicting him of aggravated cruelty to animals, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not voluntary because the Supreme Court failed to inquire into a possible intoxication defense is unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise the issue before the court (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Pray, 183 A.D.3d 842, 842, 124 N.Y.S.3d 59 ; People v. Anderson, 170 A.D.3d 878, 93 N.Y.S.3d 864 ). The "rare case" exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant's allocution did not cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of his plea ( People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; see People v. Murry, 185 A.D.3d 722, 124 N.Y.S.3d 843 ; People v. Loftus, 183 A.D.3d 631, 632, 121 N.Y.S.3d 635 ; People v. Williams, 110 A.D.3d 746, 747, 972 N.Y.S.2d 94 ). In any event, we find that the plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, his postplea statements at sentencing did not obligate the court to conduct a sua sponte inquiry concerning a possible intoxication defense (see People v. Anderson, 170 A.D.3d 878, 93 N.Y.S.3d 864 ; People v. Larock, 139 A.D.3d 1241, 1242, 31 N.Y.S.3d 665 ; see also People v. Diaz–Hernandez, 166 A.D.3d 1389, 1390, 88 N.Y.S.3d 694 ).
BALKIN, J.P., COHEN, MALTESE and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.