| People v Griffin |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00580 [47 AD3d 1164] |
| January 31, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gregory M.Griffin, Appellant. |
—[*1] Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Peter N. DeLucia of counsel), forrespondent.
Lahtinen, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.),rendered May 18, 2007, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of assault in thesecond degree.
Defendant was indicted and charged with assault in the second degree. He subsequentlypleaded guilty to such charge and, following sentencing, appealed from the judgment ofconviction.
Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that his plea was not knowing and voluntary due tothe alleged insufficiency of the plea allocution. Inasmuch as defendant did not move to withdrawhis plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, he has not preserved for our review the factualsufficiency of the plea (see People vRamirez, 45 AD3d 1108, 1108 [2007]; People v Sanabria, 43 AD3d 1228, 1229 [2007]). The exception tothe preservation rule is inapplicable here since there is nothing in the plea colloquy that castssignificant doubt on defendant's guilt or the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Hall, 41 AD3d 1090,1091 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 876 [2007]; People v Rose, 41 AD3d 1033, 1034 [2007], lv denied 9NY3d 926 [2007]). On the contrary, defendant stated during such colloquy that, while an inmateat the Broome County Jail, he punched someone causing an injury to the man's lip requiring ninestitches, thereby sufficiently establishing the elements of the crime, including intent to causephysical injury (see [*2]People v Gannon, 301 AD2d 873,873 [2003]). Further, defendant was informed of the rights being given up by and theconsequences of entering a guilty plea, and he affirmatively communicated to County Court thathe had not been coerced into entering the plea and that he had sufficiently discussed the pleabargain with his attorney. Therefore, we have no reason to view defendant's plea as anything butknowing, intelligent and voluntary (seePeople v Gutierrez, 45 AD3d 971, 972 [2007]).
Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.