| People v Anderson |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 02841 [138 AD3d 876] |
| April 13, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Gregory Anderson, Appellant. |
Philip H. Schnabel, Chester, NY, for appellant.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, NY (Elizabeth L. Schulz andRobert Middlemiss of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County(Berry, J.), rendered October 1, 2014, convicting him of driving while intoxicated inviolation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (3), upon his plea of guilty,and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea was not voluntarily entered is unpreservedfor appellate review because he did not move to vacate his plea or otherwise raise thisissue before the County Court (see People v Clarke, 93 NY2d 904, 906 [1999];People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; People v Yanez-Mejia, 133 AD3d 801, 801 [2015]; People v Jackson, 114 AD3d807, 807 [2014]). Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, the exception tothe preservation requirement does not apply here because the plea allocution did not castsignificant doubt upon his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call intoquestion the voluntariness of the plea (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666; People v Bennett, 122 AD3d871, 872 [2014]; People vLujan, 114 AD3d 963, 964 [2014]; People v Nilsen, 114 AD3d 706, 706 [2014]). In any event,the claim is meritless. The record of the plea proceedings demonstrates that thedefendant's plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Yanez-Mejia, 133AD3d 801 [2015]; People vStatini, 117 AD3d 1089, 1090 [2014]). The defendant's conclusory allegationthat he was confused at the time of the plea is belied by his lucid and appropriateresponses during the plea allocution (see People v Miranda, 67 AD3d 709, 710 [2009]; People v Wager, 34 AD3d505, 505 [2006]; People vMatthews, 21 AD3d 499, 500 [2005]).
The defendant's challenge to the purported forfeiture agreement that he entered intowith the office of the District Attorney is not reviewable on this appeal, since the recorddoes not establish that the forfeiture agreement was made a part of the judgment ofconviction (see Penal Law § 60.30; compare People v Abruzzese,30 AD3d 219 [2006], withPeople v Detres-Perez, 127 AD3d 535, 535-536 [2015]; see also People v Burgos, 129AD3d 627, 627 [2015]; People v Carmichael, 123 AD3d 1053, 1053 [2014]).Instead, any forfeiture was based on an attempted settlement of a potential, separate civilproceeding, which would be governed by the CPLR (see CPLR 1311 [1];People v Carmichael, 123 AD3d at 1053; People v Abruzzese, 30 AD3dat 219).
[*2] The defendant's remainingcontention is without merit. Chambers, J.P., Cohen, Duffy and Connolly, JJ., concur.