| People v Folk |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06770 [43 AD3d 1229] |
| September 20, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wattie Folk,Appellant. |
—[*1] John R. Trice, District Attorney, Elmira, for respondent.
Carpinello, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden,J.), rendered May 26, 2006, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofattempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree.
Defendant, a prison inmate, was indicted on one count of promoting prison contraband in thefirst degree. While that charge was pending, a second indictment was handed up againstdefendant charging him with another count of promoting prison contraband in the first degree.Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to a lesser count of attempted promoting prisoncontraband in the first degree in satisfaction of both indictments and was sentenced in accordancewith the plea agreement to a prison term of 1½ to 3 years, to run consecutive to the term ofincarceration he was already serving. Defendant now appeals, arguing that his plea was notvoluntary.
As an initial matter, defendant's failure to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate thejudgment of conviction renders his challenge to the voluntariness of his plea unpreserved for ourreview (see People v Wilson, 16AD3d 781, 781 [2005]; People v Soto, 259 AD2d 904, 904 [1999]; People vSantos, 247 AD2d 651, 651 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 905 [1998]). In any event,were we to consider it, we would find defendant's argument to be without merit.
It is well settled that " 'trial courts are not required to engage in any particular litany [*2]during an allocution in order to obtain a valid guilty plea in whichdefendant waives a plethora of rights' " (People v Whitehurst, 291 AD2d 83, 86 [2002],lv denied 98 NY2d 642 [2002], quoting People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909,910-911 [1990]). Here, we find that County Court adequately apprised defendant of theramifications of his guilty plea and that defendant expressed his understanding of the same (see People v Cherry, 12 AD3d949, 949 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 797 [2005]; People v Soto, 259 AD2d at904-905; People v Martinez, 243 AD2d 923, 924-925 [1997]; People vBerthiaume, 240 AD2d 953, 953-954 [1997]; People v Battiste, 238 AD2d 724, 725[1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 901 [1997]). In particular, the failure of County Court toinform defendant that the plea may subject him to an enhanced sentence in the future did notimpact its validity (see People vAugust, 33 AD3d 1046, 1050 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 878 [2007]). In short,we are satisfied that defendant's plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made.Furthermore, in light of the foregoing we also find defendant's federal due process argument tobe unpersuasive (see generally People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17-21 [1983]).
Defendant's remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.
Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.