| People v Holcombe |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 02952 [116 AD3d 1063] |
| April 30, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Thomas Abdul Holcombe, Appellant. |
—[*1] Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Raffaelina Gianfrancesco andSteven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County(Cacace, J.), rendered January 29, 2013, convicting him of failure to register or verify asa sex offender, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, andintelligently entered because he was coerced by the Supreme Court and the prosecutor isunpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his plea orotherwise raise this issue before the Supreme Court (see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Franco, 104 AD3d790 [2013]; People vFoster, 99 AD3d 812 [2012]; People v Hackett, 93 AD3d 807 [2012]). In any event, thedefendant's contentions are without merit and belied by the record. The remarks made bythe prosecutor during the plea proceeding regarding the maximum sentence that could beimposed for the crime of failure to register or verify as a sex offender were not coercive(see People v Tavares, 103AD3d 820 [2013]; People v Foster, 99 AD3d at 812-813; People v Strong, 80 AD3d717 [2011]).
The defendant's contention that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, andintelligently entered because the Supreme Court did not adequately inform him of theconsequences of his plea on a determination pursuant to the Sex Offender RegistrationAct (see Correction Law art 6-C) is unpreserved for appellate review, since hedid not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise this issue before the Supreme Court(see People v Peque, 22NY3d 168, 183 [2013]; People v Murray, 15 NY3d 725, 726-727 [2010]; People v Beckers, 94 AD3d774, 775 [2012]; People vVasquez, 85 AD3d 1068 [2011]). In any event, the contention is without merit(see People v Gravino, 14NY3d 546, 550, 559 [2010]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit (see People v Barnett, 68 AD3d888 [2009]). Balkin, J.P., Lott, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.