Opinion
No. 101361.
November 13, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tioga County (Sgueglia, J.), rendered March 8, 2004, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted rape in the first degree.
Teresa C. Mulliken, Harpersfield, for appellant.
Gerald A. Keene, District Attorney, Owego (Irine C. Graven of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Cardona, P.J., Spain, Rose and Stein, JJ.
In full satisfaction of a three-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted rape in the first degree. Defendant was subsequently sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement to a term of imprisonment of eight years, with five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals and we affirm.
Defendant's contention that his guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered is not preserved for our review in light of his failure to move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction ( see People v Stokely, 49 AD3d 966, 967). In any event, the fact that County Court did not advise him that he would be subject to the Sex Offender Registration Act ( see Correction Law art 6-C) upon his release from prison did not undermine the voluntariness of his plea ( see People v Coss, 19 AD3d 943, 943, lv denied 5 NY3d 805; People v Clark, 261 AD2d 97, 99-100, lv denied 95 NY2d 833). Moreover, we find no support for defendant's claim that his alleged illiteracy rendered his plea involuntary. Our review of the plea colloquy reveals that County Court conducted a thorough inquiry ensuring that defendant understood the nature and consequences of his plea, including the rights he was relinquishing, that he had discussed the plea agreement with counsel and had not been coerced into accepting the plea. Defendant then admitted to the facts underlying the crime. Therefore, we are satisfied that defendant entered his plea voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently ( see People v White, 52 AD3d 950, 951, lv denied 11 NY3d 742; People v Kennedy, 46 AD3d 1099, 1100, lv denied 10 NY3d 841). Finally, as to defendant's claim that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive, our review of the record fails to disclose an abuse of discretion or the existence of any extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a reduction of defendant's sentence in the interest of justice ( see People v Clapper, 51 AD3d 1336, 1337).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.