| People v Ocasio-Rosario |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 06120 [120 AD3d 1463] |
| September 11, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vAlan Ocasio-Rosario, Appellant. |
Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, for appellant.
D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel),for respondent.
Clark, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Breslin, J.), renderedAugust 3, 2012 in Ulster County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of thecrime of criminal contempt in the first degree.
In satisfaction of a four-count indictment and pursuant to a negotiated pleaagreement, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal contempt in the first degree and waivedhis right to appeal. Defendant admitted that on or about January 10, 2011, he violated anorder of protection of which he had actual knowledge, and did so with the intent toharass, annoy, threaten or alarm the person for whose protection the order had beenissued, namely, his child's mother, by attempting to shove her. He was sentenced, asagreed, to a prison term of 1
Defendant contends that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent.However, courts are not required to recite any particular litany of rights or otherwiseengage in a formalistic approach to guilty pleas (see People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9,16 [1983]; People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338, 355 [1967], cert denied 393US 1067 [1969]), and a plea will not be invalidated on appeal where it can be establishedthat the defendant "consulted with his [or her] attorney about the constitutionalconsequences of a guilty plea" (People v Tyrell, 22 NY3d 359, 365 [2013]; see NorthCarolina v Alford, 400 US 25, 29 n 3 [1970]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d at16). Here, in a detailed series of questions, Supreme Court clearly advised defendant ofthe various rights he was forfeiting in entering a plea, but only referenced defendant'sright to a trial without specifying his right to a jury trial. When questioned inopen court during the course of the allocution, however, defendant stated that hisattorney had "explained everything" to him. Thus, the record before us establishes thatdefendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his rights when entering hisguilty plea (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; see alsoBoykin v Alabama, 395 US 238, 242 [1969]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d at17). The issue now raised was not preserved by a motion to withdraw the plea(see CPL 220.60 [3]; 470.05 [2]), which deprived "the trial court [of] theopportunity to address the perceived error and to take corrective measures, if needed"(People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665-666 [1988]), and we discern no reason totake corrective action in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]; [6] [a];People v Tyrell, 22 NY3d at 365). Accordingly, we affirm.
McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.