| People v Darling |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 00992 [125 AD3d 1279] |
| February 6, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vMickey A. Darling, Appellant. |
D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (Bradley E. Keem of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.
David W. Foley, District Attorney, Mayville (Joseph M. Calimeri of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Chautauqua County Court (John T. Ward, J.),rendered September 10, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea ofguilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimouslyaffirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty ofcriminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree (Penal Law§ 220.09 [1]), defendant contends that County Court failed to ensure that hehad a full understanding of his plea, and that his plea therefore was not knowing,voluntary and intelligent. Defendant did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate thejudgment of conviction and thus failed to preserve that contention for our review (see People v Russell, 55 AD3d1314, 1314-1315 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 930 [2009]; People vHarrison, 4 AD3d 825, 826 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 740 [2004]).Furthermore, the narrow exception to the preservation rule does not apply becausedefendant said nothing during the plea colloquy that "clearly casts significant doubt upon[his] guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea" (People vLopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; see People v Bishop, 115 AD3d 1243, 1244 [2014], lvdenied 23 NY3d 1018 [2014]). In any event, the record demonstrates that defendant'splea was knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v Cox, 111 AD3d 1310, 1310 [2013], lvdenied 23 NY3d 1025 [2014]; People v Weakfall, 108 AD3d 1115, 1116 [2013], lvdenied 21 NY3d 1078 [2013]; see generally People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780, 781-782[2005]). Contrary to defendant's contention, "there is no requirement that defendantrecite the underlying facts of the crime to which he is pleading guilty" (People v Bailey, 49 AD3d1258, 1259 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 932 [2008]).
The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Smith, J.P., Fahey,Carni, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.