Opinion
2014-01-29
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Terraine J. SLIDE, appellant.
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Alfred J. Cicale of counsel), for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marion M. Tang of counsel), for respondent.
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Alfred J. Cicale of counsel), for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marion M. Tang of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (R. Doyle, J.), rendered September 6, 2011, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his plea on this ground prior to the imposition of sentence ( see People v. Hernandez, 110 A.D.3d 919, 919, 972 N.Y.S.2d 697). Furthermore, the “rare case” exception to the preservation rule does not apply here, since the defendant's plea allocution did not cast significant doubt upon his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of the plea (People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5; cf. People v. Worden, 22 N.Y.3d 982, 980 N.Y.S.2d 317, 3 N.E.3d 654, 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 07763, *2 [2013] ). Moreover, the defendant's postplea statement to the Probation Department regarding the commission of the crime was insufficient to warrant withdrawal of his plea ( see People v. Hernandez, 110 AD3d at 919, 972 N.Y.S.2d 697). In any event, the defendant's plea of guilty was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent ( cf. People v. Tyrell, 22 N.Y.3d 359, 981 N.Y.S.2d 336, 4 N.E.3d 346, 2013 WL 6499364, 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 08288 [2013] ).
The defendant purportedly waived his right to appeal, but the waiver is not valid because the County Court failed to make certain that the defendant understood the consequences of the waiver ( see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 264–265, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645; cf. People v. Tyrell, 22 N.Y.3d 359, 981 N.Y.S.2d 336, 4 N.E.3d 346, 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 08288, *4–5). Accordingly, the purported waiver does not foreclose review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim. However, the sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675). BALKIN, J.P., CHAMBERS, AUSTIN and ROMAN, JJ., concur.