Opinion
December 1, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Groh, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's statements, as found by the hearing court, were knowingly and voluntarily made after he was given his Miranda rights (see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436).
The defendant failed to raise an objection to the adequacy of his plea allocution in the court of first instance and accordingly has not preserved his claim with respect thereto for appellate review (see, People v. Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636; People v. Richardson, 114 A.D.2d 980; People v. Nicastro, 114 A.D.2d 979). Were we to review this issue in the interest of justice, vacatur of the plea would not be required. The defendant pleaded guilty to a lesser crime than he was charged with in the indictment, for which a factual basis is unnecessary (see, People v. Clairborne, 29 N.Y.2d 950; People v. Griffin, 7 N.Y.2d 511; People v. Wedgewood, 106 A.D.2d 674). Further, the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional rights in pleading guilty. The court is not required to elicit a detailed set of specific waivers prior to accepting a plea of guilty from a defendant (see, People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 16; People v Passley, 109 A.D.2d 897, 898).
Finally, the sentence imposed was not unduly harsh or excessive. The defendant received precisely the sentence he bargained for (see, People v. Brinson, 111 A.D.2d 865; People v Towns, 109 A.D.2d 764; People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816). Thompson, J.P., Brown, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.