| People v Barnes |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 05572 [119 AD3d 1290] |
| July 31, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| 1 The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vDavid E. Barnes, Appellant. |
George P. Ferro, Albany, for appellant.
P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Steven M. Sharp of counsel), forrespondent.
Stein, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Herrick,J.), rendered July 27, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes ofoffering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, driving while intoxicated andaggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree.
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant waived indictment and pleadedguilty to offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, as charged in a superiorcourt information. During the plea colloquy, defendant admitted that he had knowinglysubmitted a false statement to the Department of Motor Vehicles. Defendantconcomitantly entered a guilty plea to two misdemeanor charges in satisfaction of apending indictment, and waived his right to appeal. In exchange, he was promised asentence of time served followed by five years of probation, so long as he abided by theterms of the plea agreement. After defendant violated the plea agreement by notcooperating with the Probation Department and failing to appear at the scheduledviolation hearing, County Court, among other things, imposed various terms ofimprisonment, the longest of which was 1 to 3 years. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant argues that his guilty plea should be vacated because it wasnot knowing or voluntary. While this challenge to the voluntariness of the plea may beraised notwithstanding his uncontested appeal waiver (see People v Seaberg, 74NY2d 1, 11 [1989]; [*2]People v Moses, 110 AD3d 1118, 1118 [2013]), itwas not preserved for appellate review by a motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see People v Watson, 115AD3d 1016, 1017 [2014]). We are not persuaded by defendant's central contentionthat his statements during the plea colloquy cast doubt on his guilt or on the voluntarinessof his guilty plea so as to implicate the exception to the preservation requirement (seePeople v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Newton, 113 AD3d 1000, 1001 [2014]; People v Wilson, 101 AD3d1248, 1249 [2012]). Rather, the record reflects that County Court conducted athorough inquiry in which it explained the complete terms of the plea agreement, thetrial-related rights that defendant would be forgoing and the consequences of a guiltyplea, and afforded defendant an opportunity to confer with counsel, and defendantrepeatedly elicited that he understood the proceedings as they progressed and hadsufficient time to discuss the matter with counsel. Defendant unequivocally admittedboth the conduct underlying the charges and that he was pleading guilty because he was,in fact, guilty, and freely entered a guilty plea as to each charge. Therefore, defendant'schallenge to the plea is unavailing.
Peters, P.J., Rose, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.