Opinion
03-24-2017
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Wayne A. PRYCE, Defendant–Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.).
Leanne Lapp, Public Defender, Canandaigua, D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (Bradley E. Keem of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua (Chris Eaggleston of Counsel), for Respondent.
Leanne Lapp, Public Defender, Canandaigua, D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (Bradley E. Keem of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua (Chris Eaggleston of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of bail jumping in the second degree (Penal Law § 215.56 ). Defendant's contention that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently entered because he did not personally recite the elements of the crime to which he pleaded guilty is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution, and that contention is not preserved for our review inasmuch as defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v. Loper, 118 A.D.3d 1394, 1394–1395, 988 N.Y.S.2d 744, lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 1204, 16 N.Y.S.3d 526, 37 N.E.3d 1169 ; see also People v. Rinker, 141 A.D.3d 1177, 1177, 34 N.Y.S.3d 926, lv. denied 28 N.Y.3d 1030, 45 N.Y.S.3d 382, 68 N.E.3d 111 ). This case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement because nothing in the plea colloquy negates an essential element of bail jumping in the second degree, raises a potential defense to that charge, or otherwise casts doubt on defendant's guilt (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666–667, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Brinson, 130 A.D.3d 1493, 1493, 11 N.Y.S.3d 788, lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 965, 18 N.Y.S.3d 601, 40 N.E.3d 579 ). In any event, defendant's contention is without merit. Defendant's "monosyllabic responses to [County Court's] questions did not render the plea invalid" (People v. Gordon, 98 A.D.3d 1230, 1230, 951 N.Y.S.2d 278, lv. denied 20 N.Y.3d 932, 957 N.Y.S.2d 692, 981 N.E.2d 289 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Loper, 118 A.D.3d at 1395, 988 N.Y.S.2d 744 ). Further, " ‘there is no requirement that a defendant personally recite the facts underlying his or her crime[ ] during the plea colloquy, and, here, [t]he record establishes that defendant confirmed the accuracy of [the court's] recitation of the facts underlying the crime’ " (Gordon, 98 A.D.3d at 1230, 951 N.Y.S.2d 278 ).
We have considered defendant's challenge to the severity of the agreed-upon sentence and conclude that it is without merit.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.