| People v Santos |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09937 [46 AD3d 365] |
| December 18, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v PedroSantos, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Victoria E. Phillips of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (A. Kirke Bartley, J., at plea; Laura A. Ward,J., at sentence), rendered March 29, 2005, convicting defendant of criminal possession of acontrolled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to a term of one year, unanimouslyaffirmed.
Since defendant did not move to withdraw his plea, and since this case does not come withinthe narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662[1988]), his challenge to the plea is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interests ofjustice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the plea was knowing, intelligent andvoluntary, and that there was nothing in the plea allocution that cast doubt on defendant's guilt(see People v Seeber, 4 NY3d780 [2005]; People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725 [1995]). The court was under noobligation to make a sua sponte inquiry into defendant's postplea assertion of innocencecontained in the presentence report (see e.g. People v Pantoja, 281 AD2d 245[2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 905 [2001]).
Defendant did not preserve his claim that an interpreter should have been present at hissentencing (see People v Ramos, 26 NY2d 272 [1970]) and we decline to review it in theinterest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find the sentencing minutesdemonstrate that [*2]defendant was able to speak and understandEnglish, notwithstanding his use of an interpreter at other proceedings.Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Marlow, Catterson and Malone, JJ.