Opinion
2016–01252 Ind. No. 4467/15
01-24-2018
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Vincent SQUITIERI, also known as Vincent Squitteri, appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (William Kastin of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Jodi L. Mandel of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (William Kastin of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Jodi L. Mandel of counsel), for respondent.
L. PRISCILLA HALL, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERAppeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (William Miller, J.), rendered January 6, 2016, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant claims that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because the Supreme Court failed to make further inquiry when his allocution raised the possibility of the existence of an affirmative defense to the crime of attempted robbery in the first degree (see Penal Law § 160.15 [4] ). Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's claim was not waived by any valid waiver of his right to appeal, since the claim implicates the voluntariness of the defendant's plea (see People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 10, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022 ; People v. Lovick, 127 A.D.3d 1108, 1108–1109, 5 N.Y.S.3d 878 ). However, the claim is unpreserved for appellate review, and the narrow exception to the preservation rule is inapplicable (see People v. Smith, 43 A.D.3d 474, 475, 842 N.Y.S.2d 454 ; People v. Sandson , 6 A.D.3d 632, 774 N.Y.S.2d 816 ; People v. Willingham, 194 A.D.2d 703, 599 N.Y.S.2d 123 ). In any event, reduction of the defendant's conviction, upon his plea of guilty, to a lesser-included offense, which is the only relief requested on appeal, would not be a lawful remedy because the People do not consent to it (see CPL 220.10[4] ; People v. Rafael, 243 A.D.2d 277, 663 N.Y.S.2d 17 ; People v. Hough , 176 A.D.2d 964, 964–965, 575 N.Y.S.2d 571 ; People v. Vaughn , 119 A.D.2d 779, 501 N.Y.S.2d 185 ).
Accordingly, the judgment must be affirmed.
HALL, J.P., HINDS–RADIX, MALTESE and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.