| People v Lawrence |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04675 [118 AD3d 1501] |
| June 20, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vAnthony J. Lawrence, Appellant. |
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Kimberly F. Duguay of counsel),for defendant-appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Nicole M. Fantigrossi of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (David D. Egan, J.),rendered June 4, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, ofattempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, burglary in the firstdegree, criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon inthe second degree and endangering the welfare of a child (three counts).
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimouslyaffirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea ofguilty of, inter alia, attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law§§ 110.00, 125.25 [1]). Defendant contends that the factual allocutionraised significant doubt with respect to his intent to kill and, therefore, his plea was notknowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. Although that contention survivesdefendant's waiver of the right to appeal, defendant failed to preserve his contention forour review by failing to move to withdraw his guilty plea or to vacate the judgment ofconviction on that ground (seePeople v McKeon, 78 AD3d 1617, 1618 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 799[2011]). "This is not one of those rare cases 'where the defendant's recitation of the factsunderlying the crime[s] pleaded to clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant'sguilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea[ ]' to obviate thepreservation requirement" (People v Rodriguez, 17 AD3d 1127, 1129 [2005], lvdenied 5 NY3d 768 [2005], quoting People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666[1988]). Here, although defendant's initial statements cast doubt on his intent to kill,Supreme Court engaged in the requisite additional inquiry, which established defendant'sintent to kill (see Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666). In light of our decision, we do notaddress defendant's remaining contention premised upon reversal of the conviction ofattempted murder. Present—Smith, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Sconiers and Valentino,JJ.