| People v Creech |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 08562 [56 AD3d 899] |
| November 13, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Timothy R.Creech, Appellant. |
—[*1] Gerald A. Keene, District Attorney, Owego (Irine C. Graven of counsel), forrespondent.
Malone Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tioga County (Sgueglia, J.),rendered March 8, 2004, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attemptedrape in the first degree.
In full satisfaction of a three-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime ofattempted rape in the first degree. Defendant was subsequently sentenced in accordance with theplea agreement to a term of imprisonment of eight years, with five years of postreleasesupervision. Defendant now appeals and we affirm.
Defendant's contention that his guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligentlyentered is not preserved for our review in light of his failure to move to withdraw the plea orvacate the judgment of conviction (seePeople v Stokely, 49 AD3d 966, 967 [2008]). In any event, the fact that County Courtdid not advise him that he would be subject to the Sex Offender Registration Act (seeCorrection Law art 6-C) upon his release from prison did not undermine the voluntariness of hisplea (see People v Coss, 19 AD3d943, 943 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 805 [2005]; People v Clark, 261 AD2d97, 99-100 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 833 [2000]). Moreover, we find no support fordefendant's claim that his alleged illiteracy rendered his plea involuntary. Our review of the pleacolloquy reveals that County Court conducted a thorough inquiry ensuring that defendantunderstood the nature and consequences of his plea, including the rights he was relinquishing,that he had discussed the plea agreement with counsel [*2]andhad not been coerced into accepting the plea. Defendant then admitted to the facts underlying thecrime. Therefore, we are satisfied that defendant entered his plea voluntarily, knowingly andintelligently (see People v White, 52AD3d 950, 951 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 742 [2008]; People v Kennedy, 46 AD3d 1099,1100 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 841 [2008]). Finally, as to defendant's claim that thesentence imposed was harsh and excessive, our review of the record fails to disclose an abuse ofdiscretion or the existence of any extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a reduction ofdefendant's sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Clapper, 51 AD3d 1336, 1337 [2008]).
Cardona, P.J., Spain, Rose and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.