| People v Jones |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 03904 [139 AD3d 1237] |
| May 19, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vNathaniel T. Jones, Appellant. |
John A. Cirando, Syracuse, for appellant.
Alexander Lesyk, Special Prosecutor, Norwood, for respondent.
Aarons, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County(Richards, J.), rendered July 17, 2013, which revoked defendant's probation and imposeda sentence of imprisonment.
In 2008, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted burglary in the thirddegree and was sentenced to five years of probation and ordered to pay restitution. In2010, defendant's term of probation was extended by 299 days after he admitted toviolating the terms of his probation. In July 2013, defendant was charged with violatingthe terms of his probation by, among other things, failing to report on multiple occasionsto his probation officer as directed, failing to successfully complete substance abusetreatment, failing to pay restitution and testing positive for marihuana and oxycodone.Pursuant to an agreed-upon disposition, defendant admitted to all but one of thesecharges. In exchange, County Court revoked his probation and imposed the promisedsentence of 365 days in jail. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea is unpreserved forreview inasmuch as the record fails to indicate that he moved to withdraw his plea ofguilty to the probation violations (see People v Moulton, 134 AD3d 1251, 1252 [2015]; People v McGregor, 119 AD3d1235, 1236 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 991 [2015]). Moreover, theexception to the preservation requirement is not applicable where, as here, defendant'sresponses during his plea allocution were lucid, rational, appropriate and not inconsistentwith his guilt or cast any doubt on the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Johnson, 125AD3d 1052, 1052-1053 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1073 [2015]; Peoplev McCann, 289 AD2d 703, 703-704 [2001]).
Defendant also argues that his 365-day jail sentence imposed on July 17, 2013 isharsh [*2]and excessive. Given that defendant hascompleted that jail sentence during the pendency of this appeal, any claims related tosentencing are moot (see Peoplev Cancer, 132 AD3d 1019, 1020 [2015]; People v Pozzi, 117 AD3d 1325, 1325 [2014]).
Lahtinen, J.P., Rose, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.