| People v Shipps |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 01011 [136 AD3d 1113] |
| February 11, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vAndrew J. Shipps, Appellant. |
Robert D. Siglin, Elmira, for appellant.
Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira (Sophie J. Marmor of counsel), forrespondent.
McCarthy, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County(Keene, J.), rendered October 7, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of thecrime of assault in the second degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to assault in the second degree. He was thereaftersentenced to two years in prison to be followed by two years of postrelease supervision.Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's claim that his plea should be vacated due to County Court'sfailure to inquire as to a potential intoxication defense during the plea colloquy is notpreserved for our review as the record does not indicate that he made an appropriatepostallocution motion (seePeople v Brown, 125 AD3d 1049, 1049 [2015]; People v Duggins, 114 AD3d1001, 1001-1002 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 962 [2014]). Further, contraryto defendant's contention, the narrow exception to the preservation rule is not applicable.Although at an earlier plea proceeding defendant informed County Court that he was"under the influence" when he committed the crime, County Court immediatelyadjourned the proceeding in order to provide defendant an opportunity to discuss apotential intoxication defense with counsel. Two weeks later, defendant returned andacknowledged that he had an opportunity to discuss his plea with counsel and pleadedguilty after affirming that he understood that he was waiving any potential defense to thecharge. In light of the foregoing, County Court properly accepted defendant's guilty plea(see People v Mead, 64 [*2]AD3d 814, 815[2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 890 [2010]; People v Reid, 21 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2005]).
Peters, P.J., Rose and Lynch, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.