| People v Bautista |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 02660 [138 AD3d 754] |
| April 6, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Porfirio M. Bautista, Appellant. |
Philip H. Schnabel, Chester, NY, for appellant.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, NY (Steven E. Goldberg andAndrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County(DeRosa, J.), rendered September 6, 2012, convicting him of course of sexual conductagainst a child in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, andintelligently made because he was confused and did not understand what he was doing isunpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his plea of guilty(see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; People v Ross, 52 AD3d624 [2008]; People vRodriguez, 51 AD3d 1043, 1044 [2008]; People v Scott, 39 AD3d 570 [2007]). Moreover, contraryto the defendant's contention, this is not that "rare case" where the plea colloquy itselfclearly casts significant doubt on the defendant's guilt or otherwise calls into question thevoluntariness of the plea (People v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666; People v Jerome, 110 AD3d739, 740 [2013]; People vRojas, 74 AD3d 1369, 1369 [2010]). In any event, the defendant's contention isbelied by his statements during the plea proceeding, in which he acknowledged underoath that he had not taken any drugs, alcohol, or other substance that would cause himnot to think clearly, that he had a clear head and knew what he was doing, and that hehad enough time to speak to his attorney (see People v Innocent, 132 AD3d 696, 697 [2015]; People v Shorter, 106 AD3d1115 [2013]; People vDouglas, 83 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2011]).
Furthermore, the defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not voluntarilyentered because he was not advised at the plea of the mandatory surcharges is withoutmerit (see People v Hoti, 12NY3d 742, 743 [2009]; People v Guerrero, 12 NY3d 45, 48-49 [2009]; People v Cooks, 107 AD3d734, 735 [2013]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Chambers and Dickerson, JJ., concur.