| People v Perez |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08355 [101 AD3d 1162] |
| December 6, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Neftali Perez,Appellant. |
—[*1] Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira (Susan Rider-Ulacco of counsel), forrespondent.
Spain, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden, J.),rendered October 8, 2010, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of assault inthe first degree.
In satisfaction of a six-count indictment, defendant, with the aid of a sworn Spanishinterpreter, pleaded guilty to one count of assault in the first degree for stabbing another inmate.Pursuant to the plea agreement, defendant was thereafter sentenced as a second violent felonyoffender to a prison term of 12 years followed by five years of postrelease supervision, with thatsentence to be served consecutively to the term he was then serving. This appeal ensued.
We affirm. Initially, inasmuch as the record before us does not indicate that defendant movedto withdraw his plea or sought to vacate the judgment of conviction, "he has failed to preserve hischallenge to the sufficiency of the plea allocution premised on County Court's alleged failure tomake an adequate inquiry concerning his claim of self-defense" (People v Simpson, 19 AD3d 945,945 [2005]; see People v Richardson, 275 AD2d 864, 865 [2000], lv denied 95NY2d 937 [2000]) and his claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Gomez, 72 AD3d1337, 1337 [2010]). Moreover, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement is notapplicable here because, even assuming that defendant's remarks raised a legitimate claim ofself-defense, the court satisfied its duty of further inquiry (see People [*2]v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Simpson,19 AD3d at 945; People v Moore, 270 AD2d 715, 716 [2000], lv denied 95NY2d 800 [2000]). The court specifically questioned defendant about his right to raise the claimof self-defense and confirmed that defendant had already discussed a possible claim ofself-defense with his counsel. The record amply supports the conclusion that defendant fullyunderstood the nature of the charge and waived any claim of self-defense in exchange for thefavorable plea agreement (see People vRush, 79 AD3d 1522, 1523 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 836 [2011]).Accordingly, defendant has presented no basis for reversal herein.
Defendant's remaining arguments have been reviewed and found to be unpersuasive.
Rose, J.P., Lahtinen, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.