| People v McQueen |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09663 [57 AD3d 1103] |
| December 11, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Guy McQueen,Appellant. |
—[*1] P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Christopher D. Horn of counsel), forrespondent.
Lahtinen, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Breslin, J.), renderedAugust 28, 2006, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted assault in thefirst degree.
Defendant was charged in a four-count indictment with assault in the first degree, assault in thesecond degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree stemming from anincident wherein defendant slashed the victim with a kitchen knife. Pursuant to a negotiated agreement,defendant pleaded guilty to a reduced count of attempted assault in the first degree in full satisfaction ofthe indictment and was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to the bargained-for term of 6¼years in prison followed by five years of postrelease supervision. This appeal ensued.
We affirm. Preliminarily, defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea has been preservedfor our review by his motion to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Quinones, 51 AD3d 1226, 1227 [2008], lv denied10 NY3d 938 [2008]; People v Lee, 34AD3d 982 [2006]). Our review of the plea allocution reveals that defendant was fully advised ofhis rights, denied that he had been threatened or coerced into pleading guilty, indicated that he had a fullopportunity to discuss his options with counsel (including the availability of any defenses), and statedthat he was satisfied with counsel's representation. Additionally, despite taking certain [*2]medications for an apparent psychiatric condition, defendant answeredCounty Court's inquiries in a coherent fashion, acknowledged that he was thinking clearly during theplea colloquy, and denied having any difficulty communicating with counsel. Finally, although defendantpreviously had contended that he acted in self-defense, he did not make any statements during the pleaallocution that negated an element of the crime charged or called into question his guilt (see People v Wyant, 47 AD3d 1068,1069 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 873 [2008]). Accordingly, we conclude that defendant'sguilty plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Quinones, 51 AD3d at 1227).
We also find defendant's challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea lacking in merit, as "[a]bargained guilty plea to a lesser crime makes unnecessary a factual basis for the particular crimeconfessed" (People v Clairborne, 29 NY2d 950, 951 [1972]; see People v Hall, 41 AD3d 1090,1091 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 876 [2007]). Likewise, defendant's claim that the negotiatedsentence imposed as part of this plea bargain is harsh and excessive must be rejected as the recordreflects no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction in the interest ofjustice (see People v Murphy, 56 AD3d951 [2008]).
Peters, J.P., Rose, Kane and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.