| People v Gober |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 03753 [139 AD3d 872] |
| May 11, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Dennis Gober, Appellant. |
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Adrienne Gantt of counsel; Walker Oliveron the brief), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano,Johnnette Traill, and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel; Jacob Wells on the brief), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Gerald, J., at plea; Chin-Brandt, J., at sentence), rendered June 3, 2013, convicting himof grand larceny in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid (see People v Bradshaw, 18NY3d 257 [2011]; People vBrown, 122 AD3d 133 [2014]) and, thus, does not preclude review of hisclaims.
The defendant's challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution isunpreserved for appellate review (see People v Davis, 24 NY3d 1012, 1013 [2014];People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]). Contrary to the defendant'scontention, the exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here, becausethe plea allocution did not cast significant doubt on the defendant's guilt, negate anessential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of his plea (seePeople v Davis, 24 NY3d at 1013; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666). In anyevent, the plea allocution was sufficient, as it showed that the defendant understood thecharges and made an intelligent decision to accept the plea (see People v Goldstein, 12NY3d 295, 301 [2009]; People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780, 781 [2005]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Dickerson, Miller and Duffy, JJ., concur.