| People v Isaiah S. |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 06375 [130 AD3d 1081] |
| July 29, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Isaiah S., Appellant. |
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Katheryne M. Martone of counsel), forappellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Johnnette Traill, and Jeanette Lifschitz of counsel; Lorrie A. Zinno on the brief), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Melendez, J., at plea; Chin Brandt, J., at sentence), rendered August 26, 2013,adjudicating him a youthful offender, upon his plea of guilty to petit larceny, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was invalid because the SupremeCourt failed to advise him of all of his constitutional rights under Boykin vAlabama (395 US 238 [1969]) is unpreserved for appellate review because he didnot move to vacate his plea prior to the imposition of sentence or otherwise raise theissue in the Supreme Court (seePeople v Fontanet, 126 AD3d 723 [2015]; People v Pollidore, 123 AD3d 1058, 1059 [2014]; People v Bennett, 122 AD3d871, 872 [2014]; People vCaliste, 122 AD3d 765 [2014]; People v Jackson, 114 AD3d 807 [2014]). In any event, thecontention is without merit. There is no uniform mandatory catechism for accepting aplea of guilty (see People vTyrell, 22 NY3d 359, 365 [2013]; People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780, 781 [2005]; People vBennett, 122 AD3d at 872). A plea of guilty "will not be invalidated 'solely becausethe Trial Judge failed to specifically enumerate all the rights to which the defendant wasentitled and to elicit from him or her a list of detailed waivers before accepting the guiltyplea' " (People v Tyrell, 22 NY3d at 365, quoting People v Harris,61 NY2d 9, 16 [1983]). Here, before the court accepted the defendant's plea of guilty, itadequately advised him of certain constitutional rights he was surrendering by pleadingguilty (see People v Bennett, 122 AD3d at 872; cf. People v Moore, 24 NY3d1030, 1031 [2014]; People v Tyrell, 22 NY3d at 366). The recordaffirmatively demonstrates the defendant's understanding and waiver of theseconstitutional rights, and the entry of a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent plea of guilty(see People v Harris, 61 NY2d at 19-20). Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Miller and LaSalle,JJ., concur.