| People v Pratcher |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03674 [50 AD3d 1063] |
| April 22, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v BarryPratcher, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marion M. Tang of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen,J.), both rendered June 28, 2006, convicting him of robbery in the first degree under SuffolkCounty indictment No. 128B-06 and robbery in the second degree (three counts) under SuffolkCounty indictment No. 739A-06, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant argues that his plea allocution was factually insufficient to establish the crimesof robbery in the second degree under indictment No. 739A-06. However, as the defendant failedto move to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing he has not preserved for appellate review theissue of the sufficiency of the plea allocution (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Toxey,86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995]; People vElcine, 43 AD3d 1176, 1177 [2007]; People v Swanton, 27 AD3d 591 [2006]; People v Huchital, 22 AD3d 681[2005]), and this case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation rule (seePeople v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]). In any event, " '[e]ven if the defendant'sallocution did not establish the essential elements of the crime to which he pleaded guilty, itwould not require vacatur of his plea since there is no suggestion in the record that the plea wasimprovident or baseless' " (People vDonigan, 20 AD3d 487 [2005], quoting People v Duff, 158 AD2d 711, 711[1990]; see People v Seeber, 4NY3d 780, 781 [2005]; People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995]; People vGuerrero, 307 AD2d 935, 936 [2003]; People v Winbush, 199 AD2d 447, 448[1993]).[*2]
The sentence imposed for robbery in the first degree wasnot excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Rivera, J.P., Lifson, Miller,Carni and Eng, JJ., concur.