Opinion
1123 KA 13-00445.
10-06-2017
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Emmanuel L. SHEPPARD, Defendant–Appellant.
Charles J. Greenberg, Amherst, for Defendant–Appellant. Kristyna S. Mills, District Attorney, Watertown (Harmony A. Healy of Counsel), for Respondent.
Charles J. Greenberg, Amherst, for Defendant–Appellant.
Kristyna S. Mills, District Attorney, Watertown (Harmony A. Healy of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, DeJOSEPH, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree ( Penal Law § 220.21[1] ). With respect to defendant's challenge to County Court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence, we affirm for the reasons stated in People v. Richardson , 132 A.D.3d 1313, 1314–1315, 17 N.Y.S.3d 245, lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 1149, 32 N.Y.S.3d 63, 51 N.E.3d 574. By failing to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contentions that the plea allocution was factually insufficient (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665–666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ), and that the plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered (see People v. Boyden, 112 A.D.3d 1372, 1372–1373, 977 N.Y.S.2d 538, lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 960, 988 N.Y.S.2d 568, 11 N.E.3d 718 ). This case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement inasmuch as nothing in the plea colloquy "clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant's guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea" ( Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.