People v Jerome
2013 NY Slip Op 06385 [110 AD3d 739]
October 2, 2013
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, November 27, 2013


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Richard Jerome, Appellant.

[*1]Mark Diamond, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Sarah Rabinowitz and CourtneyWeinberger of counsel; Matthew C. Frankel on the brief), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Ayres, J.), rendered December 7, 2007, convicting him of attempted murder in thesecond degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, including restitution inthe sum of $11,194.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's claim that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is notpreserved for appellate review inasmuch as he did not move to withdraw his plea(see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Hernandez-Bautista, 89 AD3d 749 [2011]). Thispreservation requirement is excused only in the rare case when the plea colloquy itselfcasts "significant doubt" on the defendant's guilt or otherwise calls into question thevoluntariness of the plea (People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Rojas, 74 AD3d1369, 1369 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, the record does notcast significant doubt on the defendant's guilt or otherwise call into question thevoluntariness of his plea (see People v Rojas, 74 AD3d at 1369).

The defendant asserts that the Court erred in imposing restitution as part of thesentence, and requests that the restitution component of the sentence be vacated. Thedefendant's contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Thompson, 105AD3d 1067 [2013]; Peoplev Fields, 101 AD3d 1043 [2012]). The defendant does not contend that his pleaof guilty was rendered involuntary or unknowing due to any failure to advise him aboutrestitution at the plea proceeding, and he does not seek to withdraw his plea on thatground. Thus, the defendant is not excused from the preservation requirement due to anylack of opportunity at the sentencing proceeding to move to withdraw his plea (see People v McAlpin, 17NY3d 936 [2011]; People vLouree, 8 NY3d 541, 545-546 [2007]). We decline to exercise our interest ofjustice jurisdiction to review the defendant's contentions regarding the imposition ofrestitution. Rivera, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Cohen, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.