| People v Pearson |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 06405 [110 AD3d 1116] |
| October 3, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v EricR. Pearson, Appellant. |
—[*1] D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel),for respondent.
Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams,J.), rendered March 22, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimesof robbery in the second degree and attempted aggravated assault upon a police officer ora peace officer.
In full satisfaction of a multicount indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to robbery inthe second degree and attempted aggravated assault upon a police officer or a peaceofficer. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant to two concurrent 12-year prisonterms, followed by five years of postrelease supervision, to be served consecutively to thesentence defendant then was serving. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant contends that the plea allocution was not factually sufficientand, further, that his plea should be vacated due to County Court's failure to inquire as toa potential intoxication defense. These claims are not preserved for our review, however,as the record fails to reflect that defendant moved to withdraw his plea or vacate thejudgment of conviction (seePeople v Campbell, 81 AD3d 1184, 1185 [2011]; People v Jones, 73 AD3d1386, 1387 [2010]; Peoplev Phillips, 30 AD3d 911, 911 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 869 [2006]).Moreover, defendant did not make any statements during the plea colloquy that castdoubt upon his guilt or negated an essential element of the crimes so as to trigger thenarrow exception to the preservation rule or obligate County Court to inquire as to apotential intoxication defense (see [*2]People vCampbell, 81 AD3d at 1185; People v Jones, 73 AD3d at 1387; People vPhillips, 30 AD3d at 911). Notably, "County Court had no duty to conduct aninquiry concerning the potential defense of intoxication based upon comments made bydefendant during the . . . sentencing proceeding" (People v Phillips,30 AD3d at 911; see People vOrtega, 70 AD3d 416, 417 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 808 [2010]; People v Garbarini, 64 AD3d1179, 1179 [2009], lv denied, 13 NY3d 744 [2009]).
Lahtinen, J.P., Stein and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.