| People v Buie |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 04528 [128 AD3d 1281] |
| May 28, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Kevin L. Buie, Appellant. |
Abbie Goldbas, Utica, for appellant.
Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Brian Leeds of counsel), forrespondent.
Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith,J.), rendered July 16, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes ofburglary in the second degree, vehicular manslaughter in the second degree and assault inthe second degree.
Defendant was charged in two separate indictments with multiple crimes. In fullsatisfaction of those charges, as well as another pending indictment, he pleaded guilty toburglary in the second degree, vehicular manslaughter in the second degree and assault inthe second degree. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant, as a second violentfelony offender, to an aggregate prison term of 15 years followed by a period ofpostrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's sole contention on appeal, that his plea was not knowing,intelligent and voluntary because County Court failed to inquire whether defendant wasunder the influence of drugs or alcohol during the plea allocution, is unpreserved for ourreview as the record does not reflect that he made an appropriate postallocution motion(see People v Galagan, 35AD3d 973, 974 [2006]; People v Bevins, 27 AD3d 572, 572-573 [2006]; People v Cunningham, 23AD3d 754, 755 [2005]). Moreover, the narrow exception to the preservationrequirement was not triggered here, inasmuch as defendant did not make any statementsduring the plea colloquy that were inconsistent with his guilt or called into question thevoluntariness of his plea (seePeople v Banks, 122 AD3d 953, 953-954 [2014]; People v Waite, 120 AD3d1446, 1447 [2014]). In any event, the record is devoid of any suggestion thatdefendant was under the [*2]influence of drugs oralcohol at the time of his allocution (see People v Royster, 40 AD3d 885, 886-887 [2007], lvdenied 9 NY3d 881 [2007]). Accordingly, the judgment will not be disturbed.
McCarthy, J.P., Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.