| People v Doe |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 03683 [95 AD3d 1449] |
| May 10, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| 2—The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vMaximo Doe, Also Known as Max, Appellant. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Hannah Stith Long of counsel), forrespondent.
McCarthy, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Coccoma, J.), entered July 12,2010 in Schenectady County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes ofconspiracy in the second degree, conspiracy in the fourth degree, criminal sale of a controlledsubstance in the first degree (two counts), criminal sale of a controlled substance in the seconddegree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
As the result of an investigation into organized drug activity in Schenectady County,defendant was charged in an indictment with the crimes of conspiracy in the second degree,conspiracy in the fourth degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree (twocounts), criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal sale of acontrolled substance in the third degree.[FN*]Defendant pleaded guilty as charged and was sentenced, as a second felony drug offender, to anaggregate prison term of 14 years, plus five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.[*2]
We affirm. Defendant's contentions that his plea was notknowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered and that he was denied the effective assistance ofcounsel are not preserved for our review, as the record before us indicates that he failed to moveto withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Campbell, 89 AD3d 1279, 1279 [2011]; People v Gomez, 72 AD3d 1337,1338 [2010]). Further, 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 his guilt (seePeople v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Gorrell, 63 AD3d 1381, 1381 [2009], lv denied 13NY3d 744 [2009]). As to defendant's claim that the agreed-upon sentence was harsh andexcessive, the record reveals no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting areduction of the sentence (see People vWarren, 87 AD3d 1185, 1186 [2011]).
Lahtinen, J.P., Spain, Malone Jr. and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.
Footnote *: The indictment named 23 otherdefendants and contained a total of 84 counts.