| People v Bridge |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01712 [71 AD3d 1197] |
| March 4, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v MichaelBridge, Appellant. |
—[*1] Gerald A. Keene, District Attorney, Owego, for respondent.
Garry, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tioga County (Sgueglia, J.),rendered July 21, 2008, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary inthe second degree.
In October 2007, defendant entered a residence in Tioga County and took, among otherthings, several guns. He was subsequently indicted on nine counts that included two counts ofburglary in the second degree. He was also indicted in Broome County, where he pleaded guiltyto a related charge.[FN*]In full satisfaction of the Tioga County indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to one count ofburglary in the second degree and was sentenced to a prison term of six years with five years ofpostrelease supervision, to run concurrently with the Broome County sentence. He now appeals.
Defendant's claim that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently made isunpreserved for appellate review because he did not move to withdraw his plea or vacate thejudgment of conviction (see People vSwarts, 64 AD3d 801, 802 [2009]; People v Myricks, 36 AD3d 1006, 1006 [2007], lv denied8 NY3d 948 [2007]). The narrow exception to the [*2]preservation rule is not applicable as defendant made no statementsduring the plea colloquy that cast doubt on his guilt or negated an element of the crime (seePeople v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Campbell, 66 AD3d 1059, 1060 [2009]; People v Griffin, 47 AD3d 1164,1164 [2008]). Notably, County Court initially refused to accept the plea until it was satisfied bydefendant's statements in a subsequent hearing unequivocally confirming that he understood thefull import of his plea and had committed the crime to which he was pleading guilty. In anyevent, defendant's plea was not rendered involuntary by the fact that he gave affirmativeresponses to the court's questions rather than narrating the crime's elements himself (see People v Rosseter, 62 AD3d1093, 1094 [2009]; People vKaszubinski, 55 AD3d 1133, 1136 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 855 [2009]), andthere is no support in the record for his claim that his medications prevented him fromunderstanding the proceedings or otherwise rendered the plea involuntary (see People v McQueen, 57 AD3d1103, 1103 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 760 [2009]; People v Kaszubinski,55 AD3d at 1135).
Even if defendant's claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel had beenpreserved for our review (see People vPatnode, 60 AD3d 1109, 1110 [2009]; People v Sterling, 57 AD3d 1110, 1112-1113 [2008], lvdenied 12 NY3d 788 [2009]), we would find it unpersuasive. Among other things, counselmade appropriate pretrial motions (seePeople v Hall, 57 AD3d 1222, 1227 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 817 [2009]) andobtained a favorable disposition (seePeople v Walley, 63 AD3d 1284, 1286 [2009]); further, defendant confirmed hissatisfaction with the representation during the plea colloquy (see People v Dixon, 62 AD3d 1214, 1215 [2009], lvdenied 13 NY3d 743 [2009]). Finally, given defendant's extensive criminal history andfailure to express remorse during his presentence interview, we find that the agreed-uponsentence was not harsh or excessive (see People v Cash, 19 AD3d 934, 935 [2005], lv denied 5NY3d 804 [2005]; People v Coles,13 AD3d 665, 666 [2004]).
Peters, J.P., Spain, Lahtinen and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Footnote *: That conviction was recentlyaffirmed by this Court (People vBridge, 69 AD3d 969 [2010]).