| People v Burnett |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 01835 [93 AD3d 993] |
| March 15, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raeven C.Burnett, Also Known as Ravo, Appellant. |
—[*1] Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira (John R. Thweatt of counsel), forrespondent.
Malone Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden,J.), rendered June 11, 2010, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of robberyin the first degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the first degree in full satisfaction of a two-countindictment in return for a sentence of no more than 10 years in prison. Thereafter, County Courtsentenced defendant to eight years in prison, to be followed by five years of postreleasesupervision. Defendant now appeals and we affirm.
Defendant's contentions that her plea was not voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently enteredand that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel are not preserved for our review inlight of her failure to move to withdraw her plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Aubrey, 73 AD3d1393, 1394 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 893 [2011]; People v Gomez, 72 AD3d 1337,1338 [2010]). Moreover, with regard to the plea, the narrow exception to the preservation rule isinapplicable here, inasmuch as defendant did not make any statements during the plea allocutionthat negated a material element of the crime or otherwise raised any doubt as to her guilt (seePeople v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Wicks, 83 AD3d [*2]1223, 1224-1225 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 810 [2011]).In any event, the record reveals a knowing, voluntary and intelligent plea. Notably, althoughdefendant argues that she unknowingly waived the right to raise the defense of duress and thatcounsel did not adequately explain the ramifications of the plea, the record reflects that defendantinformed County Court that she did not wish to withdraw her plea as a result of these allegations.
To the extent that defendant argues that County Court should have granted her request toappoint new counsel—made just prior to sentencing—we find no error inasmuch asshe failed to demonstrate "good cause" for a substitution of counsel (People v Linares, 2 NY3d 507,510 [2004]; see People v Cherry, 12AD3d 949, 950 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 797 [2005]). Finally, we findunpersuasive defendant's claim that her sentence, which was less than the maximum permittedunder the plea agreement, was harsh and excessive. Having reviewed the record, and in light ofthe seriousness of the crime to which defendant pleaded guilty, we discern neither an abuse ofdiscretion by County Court nor any extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of thesentence in the interest of justice (seePeople v Evans, 81 AD3d 1040, 1041-1042 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 894[2011]).
Spain, J.P., Kavanagh, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.