Opinion
July 8, 1991
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Since the defendant did not move to withdraw his plea at any time prior to sentencing, his challenge to the sufficiency of his plea allocution is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Mackey, 77 N.Y.2d 846; People v Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636; People v Gonzalez, 150 A.D.2d 796; People v Berrios, 144 A.D.2d 566). Moreover: "Even if the defendant's allocution did not establish the essential elements of the crime to which he pleaded guilty, it would not require vacatur of his plea since there is no suggestion in the record that the plea was improvident or baseless (see, People v Nixon, 21 N.Y.2d 338, 350, cert denied sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 U.S. 1067; People v Pelaccio, 141 A.D.2d 772; People v Phelps, 140 A.D.2d 637)" (People v Duff, 158 A.D.2d 711; see, People v Cruz, 146 A.D.2d 708; People v Perkins, 89 A.D.2d 956).
Furthermore, having knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty with the assistance of capable counsel, the defendant may not now argue that the testimony given at the prior suppression hearing indicated that the evidence available to the People for use at a trial was legally insufficient to support the crime of robbery in the second degree (see, People v Torres, 171 A.D.2d 825).
Finally, insofar as the sentence that was imposed was the sentence that the defendant bargained for and agreed to as part of the negotiated plea, he may not now complain that it was harsh or excessive (see, People v DiSalvo, 170 A.D.2d 617; People v Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816). Nor are there any factors present in this case which would warrant modification of the sentence by this court. Mangano, P.J., Lawrence, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.