People v Slide
2014 NY Slip Op 00539 [113 AD3d 881]
January 29, 2014
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, March 5, 2014


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Terraine J. Slide, Appellant.

[*1]Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Alfred J. Cicale of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marion M. Tang of counsel),for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (R.Doyle, J.), rendered September 6, 2011, convicting him of manslaughter in the firstdegree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, andintelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move towithdraw his plea on this ground prior to the imposition of sentence (see People v Hernandez, 110AD3d 919, 919 [2013]). Furthermore, the "rare case" exception to the preservationrule does not apply here, since the defendant's plea allocution did not cast significantdoubt upon his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question thevoluntariness of the plea (People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; cf.People v Worden, 22 NY3d 982, 985 [2013]). Moreover, the defendant's postplea statement to the Probation Departmentregarding the commission of the crime was insufficient to warrant withdrawal of his plea(see People v Hernandez, 110 AD3d at 919). In any event, the defendant's plea ofguilty was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (cf. People v Tyrell, 22 NY3d—, 2013 NY Slip Op 08288 [2013]).

The defendant purportedly waived his right to appeal, but the waiver is not validbecause the County Court failed to make certain that the defendant understood theconsequences of the waiver (seePeople v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264-265 [2011]; cf. People v Tyrell,22 NY3d —, �, 2013 NY Slip Op 08288, *4-5). Accordingly, the purported waiver does notforeclose review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim. However, the sentenceimposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Balkin,J.P., Chambers, Austin and Roman, 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.