| People v Ferguson-Johnson |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07378 [55 AD3d 1340] |
| October 3, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Isaiah C.Ferguson-Johnson, Appellant. (Appeal No. 2.) |
—[*1] R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua (Brian D. Dennis of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (William F. Kocher, J.), rendered February21, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of reckless endangerment in thefirst degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal mischief in the seconddegree, and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts).
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, interalia, one count each of reckless endangerment in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.25) andcriminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03 [former (2)]), and three countsof criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.39 [1]). Defendant failed topreserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see People vLopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; People v Boggs, 46 AD3d 1402 [2007]; People v Hamilton, 45 AD3d 1396[2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 765 [2008]), and this case does not fall within the exception to thepreservation rule (see Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666). To the extent that defendant's statementsduring the plea colloquy appeared to negate elements of the crime of reckless endangerment in the firstdegree, County Court conducted the requisite further inquiry to ensure that defendant understood thenature of the charge and that the plea was intelligently entered (see id.). Although defendantalso failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in imposing consecutivesentences, preservation of that contention is not required (see People v Fuentes, 52 AD3d 1297 [2008]). Nevertheless, weconclude that defendant's contention lacks merit (see generally People v Olds, 24 AD3d 571, 572 [2005], lvdenied 6 NY3d 836 [2006]). Present—Centra, J.P., Lunn, Peradotto, Green and Pine, JJ.