| People v Taylor |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 01542 [82 AD3d 1291] |
| March 3, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v RodneyTaylor, Appellant. |
—[*1] Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), forrespondent.
Peters, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Czajka, J.),rendered March 19, 2010, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of drivingwhile intoxicated (two counts) and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the firstdegree.
Defendant was indicted for aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the firstdegree and two counts of driving while intoxicated (hereinafter DWI). The DWI counts werecharged as class E felonies by reason of defendant's previous convictions of DWI and drivingwhile ability impaired (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 [1] [c] [i]), and theaccompanying special information (see CPL 200.60) specifically accused defendant ofhaving previously been convicted of those offenses. During a thorough colloquy in whichdefendant's rights and the consequences of his plea were reviewed in detail, defendant pleadedguilty to all three counts of the indictment. Prior to sentencing, defendant sought to withdraw hisguilty plea, claiming that one of his prior DWI convictions was invalid and that his plea was notknowingly and intelligently made. County Court denied the motion and sentenced defendant toan aggregate term of 1
Defendant contends that the two DWI counts of the indictment were jurisdictionallydefective because the special information failed to conform with the requirements of CPL200.60. However, any deficiencies in the special information constituted a procedural, [*2]nonjurisdictional defect that was waived by defendant's knowingand voluntary guilty plea (see People v Williamson, 301 AD2d 860, 862 [2003], lvdenied 100 NY2d 567 [2003]; see also People v Viano, 287 AD2d 584, 585 [2001],lv denied 97 NY2d 689 [2001]; People v Gill, 109 AD2d 419, 420 [1985]).Likewise, defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the People's proof regarding his priorconvictions was forfeited by his guilty plea (see People v Negron, 280 AD2d 780, 781[2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 832 [2001]; see generally People v Taylor, 65 NY2d1, 5 [1985]).
Nor do we find any merit in defendant's contention that County Court erred in denying hismotion to withdraw his plea. "Whether to allow withdrawal of a guilty plea is left to the sounddiscretion of County Court, and will generally not be permitted absent some evidence ofinnocence, fraud or mistake in its inducement" (People v Mitchell, 73 AD3d 1346, 1347 [2010], lv denied15 NY3d 922 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Waters, 80 AD3d1002, 1003 [2011]; People vWalker, 27 AD3d 899, 901 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 764 [2006]). No suchshowing was made here. During the plea colloquy, County Court informed defendant of his rightto plead not guilty and go to trial, advised him of his sentencing exposure if convicted after trial,and fully explained the ramifications of pleading guilty and the rights he would be relinquishingby doing so. Defendant confirmed his understanding, attested that he was not coerced orthreatened into pleading guilty but was doing so voluntarily and of his own free will, andindicated that he had conferred with counsel about the matter and was satisfied with his services.Contrary to defendant's contention, the fact that County Court informed him of the potentialmaximum sentence to which he was exposed under the indictment did not constitute coercion toinduce his guilty plea or otherwise render the plea involuntary (see People v Morelli, 46 AD3d1215, 1216 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 814 [2008]; People v Coleman, 8 AD3d 825,826 [2004]; People v Collins, 298 AD2d 715 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 556[2002]; People v Mackey, 175 AD2d 346, 349 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 969[1991]). Accordingly, County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion.
Kavanagh, Stein, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.