Opinion
106032, 106064
11-13-2014
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Codey A. ROYCE, Appellant.
Lisa A. Burgess, Indian Lake, for appellant. Mary E. Rain, District Attorney, Canton (Patricia C. Campbell, Syracuse, of counsel), for respondent.
Lisa A. Burgess, Indian Lake, for appellant.
Mary E. Rain, District Attorney, Canton (Patricia C. Campbell, Syracuse, of counsel), for respondent.
Before: LAHTINEN, J.P., McCARTHY, EGAN JR., DEVINE and CLARK, JJ.
Opinion CLARK, J.Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.), rendered April 3, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of robbery in the second degree and attempted burglary in the second degree.
Defendant was charged in two indictments with various crimes arising from his theft of property on two separate occasions. In satisfaction of these indictments and other pending charges, defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree and attempted burglary in the second degree and waived his right to appeal. In accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, County Court imposed concurrent sentences of five years in prison and five years of postrelease supervision on the robbery conviction, and three years in prison and three years of postrelease supervision on the burglary conviction. Defendant now appeals.
Defendant contends that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent because County Court failed to advise him that he would be subject to an enhanced sentence as a second felony offender on any future felony conviction. Although this claim survives his waiver of appeal, defendant has failed to preserve it by making an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v. Leach, 119 A.D.3d 1429, 1430, 989 N.Y.S.2d 761 [2014], lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 962, 996 N.Y.S.2d 221, 20 N.E.3d 1001 [2014] ; People v. Tole, 119 A.D.3d 982, 983, 989 N.Y.S.2d 185 [2014] ; People v. Monk, 113 A.D.3d 999, 978 N.Y.S.2d 919 [2014], lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 1065, 994 N.Y.S.2d 324, 18 N.E.3d 1145 [2014] ). Moreover, given that defendant did not make any statements inconsistent with his guilt when entering his plea, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement is inapplicable (see People v. Monk, 113 A.D.3d at 999, 978 N.Y.S.2d 919 ; People v. Dobrouch, 59 A.D.3d 781, 781–782, 873 N.Y.S.2d 759 [2009], lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 853, 881 N.Y.S.2d 664, 909 N.E.2d 587 [2009] ). Therefore, the judgment must be affirmed.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
LAHTINEN, J.P., McCARTHY, EGAN JR. and DEVINE, JJ., concur.