| People v Martinez |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 05500 [129 AD3d 1106] |
| June 24, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Phillip Martinez, Appellant. |
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, N.Y., for appellant.
Madeline Singas, Acting District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Jason R. Richards andKevin C. King of counsel), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Calabrese, J.), rendered December 13, 2010, convicting him of criminal contempt in thefirst degree, criminal contempt in the second degree (two counts), attempted assault inthe third degree, and criminal trespass in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, andimposing sentence, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court rendered February14, 2012, revoking the sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court onDecember 13, 2010, upon a finding that he violated a condition thereof, after a hearing,and imposing a term of imprisonment upon his previous convictions of criminalcontempt in the first degree, criminal contempt in the second degree (two counts),attempted assault in the third degree, and criminal trespass in the third degree.
Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, andintelligent is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw theplea (see People v Canole,123 AD3d 940, 940 [2014]). In any event, the record reflects that the plea wasknowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82NY2d 536, 543 [1993]). The defendant's post-plea assertions regarding his innocencecontradicted the admissions he made under oath at his plea allocution, and wereinsufficient to warrant vacatur of his plea or a hearing (see People v Dixon, 29NY2d 55, 57 [1971]; People vDazzo, 92 AD3d 796, 796 [2012]; People v Douglas, 83 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2011]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidentlyexercise its discretion in failing to, sua sponte, order a competency examination (seePeople v Tortorici, 92 NY2d 757, 765 [1999]; People v Velez, 64 AD3d 799, 800 [2009]; People v Simpson, 52 AD3d846, 847 [2008]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Skelos,Roman and LaSalle, JJ., concur.