| People v Mead |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 05654 [64 AD3d 814] |
| July 2, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andrew C.Mead, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen B. Hogan, District Attorney, Lake George (Marc Kokosa of counsel), forrespondent.
Rose, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County (Hall, J.), renderedSeptember 27, 2006, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of robbery in thesecond degree and menacing in the second degree.
Defendant was charged in a four-count indictment with robbery in the first degree, robberyin the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and menacing in thesecond degree. At a hearing to discuss a possible plea agreement, the prosecution acknowledgedpossession of evidence that would support an affirmative defense to robbery in the first degreeand criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and dismissed those counts. Thereafter,defendant pleaded guilty to the remaining charges and was sentenced, as agreed, to six years inprison and one year in jail (to run concurrently) followed by five years of postreleasesupervision. He now appeals and we affirm.
Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of his plea allocution, premised on County Court'salleged failure to adequately inquire as to a possible intoxication defense, is unpreserved for ourreview inasmuch as defendant did not make a motion to withdraw his plea or vacate thejudgment of conviction (see People vSimpson, 19 AD3d 945, 945 [2005]). Moreover, the narrow exception to thepreservation doctrine is inapplicable here because, notwithstanding defendant's assertion, CountyCourt clearly satisfied its duty to inquire further (see People v [*2]Moore, 270 AD2d 715, 716 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d800 [2000]). Indeed, immediately following defendant's statement regarding his intoxication,County Court suspended the plea allocution and advised defendant that such intoxication wassomething a jury would consider when determining whether he possessed a criminal intent andasked defendant if he was certain that he wanted to proceed without a trial and enter a guiltyplea. Following defendant's affirmative response to that question, defense counsel informedCounty Court that he and defendant had engaged in extensive discussions regarding the matter.Thus, were we to review the merits, we would find that County Court, having ascertained thatdefendant's waiver of a possible intoxication defense was knowing and voluntary, properlyaccepted his guilty plea (see People vSterling, 57 AD3d 1110, 1112 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 788 [2009]).
Defendant's remaining contentions, to the extent that they are properly before us, have beenreviewed and found to be without merit.
Cardona, P.J., Spain, Kane and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.