Opinion
2011-10-11
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,v.Larry MARTORELL, Defendant–Appellant.
Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Matthew I. Fleischman of counsel), for appellant.Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Matthew T. Murphy of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered April 15, 2009, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 8 years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant did not preserve his claim that the court failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into his possible justification defense during the plea allocution, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. The narrow exception to the preservation rule explained in People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665–666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988] does not apply because defendant's allocution did not cast doubt on his guilt. The court's duty to inquire was not triggered by statements defendant made to the police that may have suggested a possible justification defense, since defendant “did not reiterate those statements at his plea allocution” ( People v. Negron, 222 A.D.2d 327, 327, 635 N.Y.S.2d 615 [1995], lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 882, 645 N.Y.S.2d 457, 668 N.E.2d 428 [1996] ). As an alternative holding, we find that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily pleaded guilty. In particular, the court specifically warned defendant that by pleading guilty he would be giving up any self-defense claim.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., FRIEDMAN, CATTERSON, MOSKOWITZ, ABDUS–SALAAM, JJ., concur.