Opinion
November 5, 1984
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.).
Judgments affirmed.
We note that the issue raised by the defendant concerning his pleas of guilty was not presented to the court of first instance by way of a motion to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment. Accordingly, that issue has not been preserved for review (see People v Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636; People v Willie, 101 A.D.2d 819; People v Thomas, 74 A.D.2d 317, aff'd. 53 N.Y.2d 338). In any event, were we to address the merits, we would affirm.
Defendant contends that Criminal Term erred during the plea allocution by not advising him that he could cross-examine the People's witnesses, testify in his own behalf, force the People to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that a guilty verdict by the jury would have to be unanimous. It is well established that no uniform mandatory catechism of pleading defendants is required ( People v Nixon, 21 N.Y.2d 338, cert den sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 U.S. 1067). The record before us demonstrates that the fundamentals of plea taking were observed and that the defendant's pleas were knowingly and voluntarily entered ( People v Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9).
Regarding defendant's sentences, which he claims are excessive, he pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentences which were thereafter actually imposed. On this record, defendant has no basis to now complain that his sentences were excessive. Niehoff, J.P., Boyers, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.