| People v Royce |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 07702 [122 AD3d 1008] |
| November 13, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vCodey A. Royce, Appellant. |
Lisa A. Burgess, Indian Lake, for appellant.
Mary E. Rain, District Attorney, Canton (Patricia C. Campbell, Syracuse, ofcounsel), for respondent.
Clark, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County(Richards, J.), rendered April 3, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of thecrimes of robbery in the second degree and attempted burglary in the second degree.
Defendant was charged in two indictments with various crimes arising from his theftof property on two separate occasions. In satisfaction of these indictments and otherpending charges, defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree and attemptedburglary in the second degree and waived his right to appeal. In accordance with theterms of the plea agreement, County Court imposed concurrent sentences of five years inprison and five years of postrelease supervision on the robbery conviction, and threeyears in prison and three years of postrelease supervision on the burglary conviction.Defendant now appeals.
Defendant contends that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligentbecause County Court failed to advise him that he would be subject to an enhancedsentence as a second felony offender on any future felony conviction. Although thisclaim survives his waiver of appeal, defendant has failed to preserve it by making anappropriate postallocution motion (see People v Leach, 119 AD3d 1429, 1430 [2014], lvdenied 24 NY3d 962 [2014]; People v Tole, [*2]119 AD3d 982, 983 [2014]; People v Monk, 113 AD3d999 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1065 [2014]). Moreover, given thatdefendant did not make any statements inconsistent with his guilt when entering his plea,the narrow exception to the preservation requirement is inapplicable (see People vMonk, 113 AD3d at 999; People v Dobrouch, 59 AD3d 781, 781-782 [2009], lvdenied 12 NY3d 853 [2009]). Therefore, the judgment must be affirmed.
Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Egan Jr. and Devine, JJ., concur. Ordered that thejudgment is affirmed.