| People v Trombley |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 02105 [115 AD3d 1114] |
| March 27, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v AaronJ. Trombley, Appellant. |
—[*1] Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Jamie A. Douthat of counsel), forrespondent.
Lahtinen, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County(McGill, J.), rendered September 10, 2010, convicting defendant upon his plea of guiltyof the crimes of vehicular manslaughter in the first degree, vehicular assault in thesecond degree and driving while ability impaired by drugs, and the traffic infraction ofdriving to the left of pavement markings.
On October 16, 2009, a motor vehicle being operated by defendant crossed into theoncoming lane of traffic, resulting in a head-on collision with a vehicle headed in theopposite direction, killing two passengers in that vehicle and seriously injuring its driver.In full satisfaction of an eight-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to vehicularmanslaughter in the first degree, vehicular assault in the second degree, driving whileability impaired by drugs and driving to the left of pavement markings. County Courtthereafter sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of 5
We affirm. Defendant's contentions that his plea was not voluntarily, knowingly orintelligently made and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel are notpreserved for our review, inasmuch as the record does not reveal that he made anappropriate postallocution motion (see People v Gathers, 106 AD3d 1333, 1334 [2013], lvdenied 21 NY3d 1073 [2013]; People v McGowan, 98 AD3d 1192, 1192 [2012]).Moreover, regarding the plea, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement isinapplicable, insofar as defendant did not make any [*2]statements during the plea allocution that negated a materialelement of the crime or otherwise cast doubt upon his guilt (see People v Sanat, 108 AD3d872, 872 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1090 [2014]; People v Sylvan, 107 AD3d1044, 1045 [2013]). Finally, regarding defendant's claim that his sentence is harshand excessive, the record reveals no abuse of discretion or any extraordinarycircumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence (see People v Bean, 102 AD3d1062, 1063 [2013]; Peoplev Gardner, 101 AD3d 1269, 1270 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1061[2013]).
Peters, P.J., Rose and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.