People v Watts
2010 NY Slip Op 08271 [78 AD3d 1593]
November 12, 2010
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
As corrected through Wednesday, January 19, 2011


The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Perez D. Watts,Appellant.

[*1]David J. Farrugia, Public Defender, Lockport (Mary-Jean Bowman of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.

Perez D. Watts, defendant-appellant pro se.

Michael J. Violante, District Attorney, Lockport (Thomas H. Brandt of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Matthew J. Murphy, III, J.), renderedSeptember 29, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of acontrolled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, ofcriminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]). By failing tomove to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant has failed to preserve forour review his contention that the plea was not voluntary, knowing, and intelligent (see People vZuliani, 68 AD3d 1731 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 894 [2010]). Moreover, this casedoes not fall within the rare exception to the preservation rule set forth in People v Lopez (71NY2d 662, 666 [1988]), because nothing in the plea colloquy casts any doubt on defendant's guilt orthe voluntariness of the plea (see People vLoper, 38 AD3d 1178 [2007]). In any event, we conclude that defendant's contention lacksmerit. Although County Court did not mention during the plea colloquy that the sentence to be imposedfor the instant crime might run consecutively to an undischarged sentence on a previous conviction, thecourt also did not inform defendant at that time that he would receive concurrent sentences, nor did thecourt give defendant " 'any reason to think that part or all of [the] sentence [imposed for the instantcrime] would be effectively nullified, by running simultaneously with [the] sentence[ ] he had alreadyreceived' " (People v Lagas, 76 AD3d384, 387 [2010], quoting People ex rel.Gill v Greene, 12 NY3d 1, 6 [2009], cert denied sub nom., Gill v Rock, 558 US—, 130 S Ct 86 [2009]; see People v Silva, 220 AD2d 230, 231 [1995], lv denied87 NY2d 977 [1996]). Present—Martoche, J.P., Sconiers, Green and Pine, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.