| People v Scribner |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07279 [77 AD3d 1022] |
| October 14, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v WilliamScribner, Appellant. |
—[*1] Gerald A. Keene, District Attorney, Owego, for respondent.
Peters, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tioga County (Sgueglia, J.),rendered January 16, 2009, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of failure toregister under the Sex Offender Registration Act.
In January 2009, defendant pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with failure toregister under the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law § 168-f [4];§ 168-t) and was sentenced to the agreed-upon term of 1 to 3 years in prison. Defendantnow appeals, contending that his plea was defective and the sentence imposed was harsh andexcessive.
We affirm. Contrary to defendant's assertion, the alleged deficiencies in his plea allocutionare not jurisdictional in nature but, rather, implicate the sufficiency and voluntariness of his plea.In this regard, defendant's failure to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment ofconviction render these issues unpreserved for our review (see People v Bethel, 69 AD3d 1126, 1127 [2010]; People v Scitz, 67 AD3d 1251[2009]; People v Harris, 51 AD3d1335, 1336 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 789 [2008]). Further, the narrow exception tothe preservation requirement is not triggered here, as defendant did not make any statementsduring the plea allocution that negated an element of the crime or otherwise cast doubt upon hisguilt (see People v Dixon, 62 AD3d1214 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 743 [2009]; People v Dobrouch, 59 AD3d 781 [2009], lv denied 12NY3d 853 [2009]). In any event, there is no "ritualistic catechism" that must be followed prior toaccepting a guilty plea, and "the extent of the colloquy [*2]between the trial court and a criminal defendant prior to the takingof the plea is a matter left to the court's discretion" (People v Liller, 116 AD2d 919, 920[1986], lv denied 67 NY2d 946 [1986]; see People v Allen, 79 AD2d 1004[1981]).
Here, a review of the plea allocution reveals that defendant, through his affirmative responsesto County Court's inquiries, expressed both his understanding of his rights and his desire to pleadguilty. Thus, were we to reach this issue, we would find that defendant's plea was knowing,intelligent and voluntary (see People vGutierrez, 45 AD3d 971, 972 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1034 [2008]; People v Wright, 21 AD3d 583,584 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 857 [2005]; People v Davis, 250 AD2d 939, 941[1998]). Defendant's remaining contention—that the sentence imposed was harsh andexcessive—has been examined and found to be lacking in merit.
Spain, Malone Jr., Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.