Opinion
2017–01685 S.C.I. No. 1888/16
04-10-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Segundo PERALTA, appellant.
N. Scott Banks, Hempstead, N.Y. (Tammy Feman and Argun M. Ulgen of counsel), for appellant. Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Cristin N. Connell of counsel; Matthew C. Frankel on the brief), for respondent.
N. Scott Banks, Hempstead, N.Y. (Tammy Feman and Argun M. Ulgen of counsel), for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Cristin N. Connell of counsel; Matthew C. Frankel on the brief), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., HECTOR D. LASALLE, BETSY BARROS, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. However, the defendant failed to preserve this contention for appellate review, since he did not move to vacate his plea or otherwise raise this issue before the County Court (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Kovalsky, 166 A.D.3d 900, 85 N.Y.S.3d 889 ; People v. Miller, 166 A.D.3d 812, 88 N.Y.S.3d 199 ; People v. Ramos, 164 A.D.3d 922, 922, 82 N.Y.S.3d 103 ; People v. Bridgers, 159 A.D.3d 715, 715, 69 N.Y.S.3d 497 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the 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. Ramos, 164 A.D.3d at 922–923, 82 N.Y.S.3d 103 ; see People v. Davis, 24 N.Y.3d 1012, 1013, 997 N.Y.S.2d 115, 21 N.E.3d 568 ; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Stone, 91 A.D.3d 977, 977, 937 N.Y.S.2d 630 ).
In any event, the defendant's contention that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is without merit. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Court of Appeals has "never held that a plea is effective only if a defendant acknowledges committing every element of the pleaded-to offense ... or provides a factual exposition for each element of the pleaded-to offense" ( People v. Seeber, 4 N.Y.3d 780, 781, 793 N.Y.S.2d 826, 826 N.E.2d 797 [citation omitted]; see People v. Goldstein, 12 N.Y.3d 295, 301, 879 N.Y.S.2d 814, 907 N.E.2d 692 ; People v. Ramos, 164 A.D.3d at 923, 82 N.Y.S.3d 103 ). The Court of Appeals has stated that "no catechism is required in connection with the acceptance of a plea" ( People v. Goldstein, 12 N.Y.3d at 301, 879 N.Y.S.2d 814, 907 N.E.2d 692 ; see People v. Seeber, 4 N.Y.3d at 781, 793 N.Y.S.2d 826, 826 N.E.2d 797 ), and has "refused to disturb pleas by canny defendants even when there has been absolutely no elicitation of the underlying facts of the crime" ( People v. Goldstein, 12 N.Y.3d at 301, 879 N.Y.S.2d 814, 907 N.E.2d 692, citing People v. Fooks, 21 N.Y.2d 338, 350, 287 N.Y.S.2d 659, 234 N.E.2d 687 ; see People v. Ramos, 164 A.D.3d at 923, 82 N.Y.S.3d 103 ). Rather, "[i]t is enough that the allocution shows that the defendant understood the charges and made an intelligent decision to enter a plea" ( People v. Goldstein, 12 N.Y.3d at 301, 879 N.Y.S.2d 814, 907 N.E.2d 692 ; see People v. Ramos, 164 A.D.3d at 923, 82 N.Y.S.3d 103 ). Here, the record of the plea proceeding demonstrates that the defendant understood the charges and intelligently decided to enter the plea of guilty (see People v. Goldstein, 12 N.Y.3d at 301, 879 N.Y.S.2d 814, 907 N.E.2d 692 ; People v. Ramos, 164 A.D.3d at 923, 82 N.Y.S.3d 103 ; People v. Woods, 147 A.D.3d 1156, 1157, 46 N.Y.S.3d 441 ; People v. Nichols, 77 A.D.3d 1339, 1340, 908 N.Y.S.2d 295 ).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit (see People v. Cortez, 115 A.D.3d 757, 758, 981 N.Y.S.2d 596 ; People v. Bicet, 180 A.D.2d 692, 693, 580 N.Y.S.2d 55 ).
Accordingly, since the record of the plea proceeding demonstrates that the defendant "understood the charges and made an intelligent decision to enter a plea" ( People v. Goldstein, 12 N.Y.3d at 301, 879 N.Y.S.2d 814, 907 N.E.2d 692 ; see People v. Woods, 147 A.D.3d at 1157, 46 N.Y.S.3d 441 ; People v. Nichols, 77 A.D.3d at 1340, 908 N.Y.S.2d 295 ), we affirm the judgment of conviction.
MASTRO, J.P., LASALLE, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.