| People v Straub |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00862 [92 AD3d 1028] |
| February 9, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard J.Straub, Appellant. |
—[*1] Gerald A. Keene, District Attorney, Owego (Irene C. Graven of counsel), forrespondent.
Malone Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tioga County (Sgueglia, J.),rendered April 25, 2008, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminalsexual act in the first degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sexual act in the first degree and was sentenced,pursuant to a plea agreement, to a prison term of 10 years followed by five years of postreleasesupervision. Defendant appeals and we affirm.
While defendant first challenges the voluntariness of his plea on the ground that he was notgiven adequate time to evaluate the offer, his failure to move to withdraw the plea or vacate thejudgment of conviction renders this argument unpreserved for review (see People v Zimmerman, 87 AD3d1225, 1225-1226 [2011]; People vPlanty, 85 AD3d 1317, 1318 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 820 [2011]). To theextent that defendant argues that the exception to the preservation rule applies inasmuch as hemade statements during the plea colloquy that suggested that his medications may haveinfluenced his commission of the crime, we find that County Court conducted a sufficient inquirythereafter to ensure that defendant understood the nature of the charge and that the plea wasknowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666[1988]; People v Kilgore, 45 AD3d886, 887-888 [2007], lv denied 10 [*2]NY3d 767[2008]; People v Mejias, 293 AD2d 819, 819-820 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d699 [2002]). Defendant's argument that he was not afforded the effective assistance of counsel isalso unpreserved for review (see Peoplev Campbell, 89 AD3d 1279, 1279 [2011]; People v Zimmerman, 87 AD3d at1225-1226) and, in any event, the record indicates that defendant was afforded meaningfulrepresentation. Defendant's remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be lacking inmerit.
Mercure, A.P.J., Peters, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.