People v Cajigas
2014 NY Slip Op 08877 [123 AD3d 1299]
December 18, 2014
Appellate Division, Third Department
As corrected through Wednesday, January 28, 2015


[*1]
 The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vHeriberto A. Cajigas, Appellant.

Albert F. Lawrence, Greenfield Center, for appellant.

Mary E. Rain, District Attorney, Canton (Patricia C. Campbell, Syracuse, ofcounsel), for respondent.

Garry, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County(Richards, J.), rendered November 9, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guiltyof the crime of driving while intoxicated.

In full satisfaction of an indictment and an uncharged crime, defendant pleadedguilty to driving while intoxicated and waived his right to appeal. Pursuant to the pleaagreement, County Court thereafter sentenced defendant to a prison term of11/3 to 4 years, to run consecutively to a term he was currently serving foran unrelated offense, to be followed by a conditional discharge of three years to runconsecutively to his imprisonment, with the requirement that he comply with the ignitioninterlock program. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. While defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea survives hiswaiver of the right to appeal, the issue is unpreserved for our review as the record doesnot reveal that he made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Fate, 117 AD3d1327, 1328 [2014]; Peoplev Trombley, 115 AD3d 1114, 1114 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1068[2014]). Moreover, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement was notimplicated, as defendant did not make any statements during the plea colloquy that castdoubt on his guilt or otherwise called into question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Griffin, 117AD3d 1339 [2014]; Peoplev O'Neill, 116 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]). Contrary to defendant's contention,County Court did not err in imposing the conditional discharge to run consecutively tohis prison sentence (see Penal Law § 60.21; People v O'Brien, 111 AD3d1028, 1029 [2013]).

[*2] McCarthy,J.P., Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.