| People v Morgan |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 04124 [84 AD3d 1594] |
| May 19, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joshua M.Morgan, Appellant. |
—[*1] Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira (Susan Rider-Ulacco of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Buckley, J.), renderedMay 17, 2010, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of arson in the firstdegree.
Following a house fire in which two people were killed, defendant was charged in anindictment with arson in the first degree and two counts of murder in the second degree. Hepleaded guilty to arson in the first degree and was sentenced, in accordance with the pleaagreement, to 20 years to life in prison. Defendant now appeals.
Initially, defendant asserts that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary or intelligentbecause County Court did not make an adequate inquiry into the possible defense of intoxication.This claim, however, has not been preserved for our review due to defendant's failure to make amotion to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction on this basis (see People v Campbell, 81 AD3d1184, 1185 [2011]; People vJones, 73 AD3d 1386, 1387 [2010]). Moreover, upon reviewing the transcript of theplea proceedings, we do not find that defendant's factual recitation casts significant doubt uponhis guilt or negates an essential element of the crime so as to fall within the narrow exception tothe preservation requirement or to impose an obligation upon County Court to conduct a furtherinquiry into a potential intoxication defense (see People v Campbell, 81 AD3d at 1185;People v Keyes, 300 AD2d 909, 910 [2002]). [*2]Significantly, County Court obtained confirmation on the recordthat defendant knew what he was doing and formed the requisite intent to commit the crimenotwithstanding his consumption of alcohol (see People v Jones, supra).
As for defendant's contention that his sentence is harsh and excessive, we find this claim tobe unavailing. Defendant has an extensive criminal record, which started at a very young age, andthe brutality of the crime at issue is illustrated by the fact that he set fire to a home during theearly morning hours knowing that the occupants were most probably sleeping. In view of this, aswell as the fact that defendant received the sentence agreed to as part of the plea agreement, wefind no abuse of discretion nor any extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of thesentence in the interest of justice (see People v Wright, 214 AD2d 759, 762 [1995], lvdenied 86 NY2d 805 [1995]; People v Pierce, 150 AD2d 948, 950 [1989], lvdenied 74 NY2d 817 [1989]).
Mercure, J.P., Peters, Malone Jr., Kavanagh and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that thejudgment is affirmed.