| People v Ellis |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 05720 [142 AD3d 509] |
| August 3, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Kevin Ellis, Jr., Appellant. |
Clinton W. Calhoun III, White Plains, NY, for appellant.
James A. McCarty, Acting District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Laurie Sapakoff andJohn Collins of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County(Minihan, J.), rendered June 23, 2015, convicting him of burglary in the third degree,upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his current challenge to thevalidity of his plea of guilty, as he failed to move to withdraw his plea or to otherwiseraise the issue before the County Court (see People v Clarke, 93 NY2d 904, 906[1999]; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636 [1983]; People v Axel M., 122 AD3d946, 946-947 [2014]). Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, this matterdoes not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation rule set forth in People vLopez (71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]), since the defendant knowingly and voluntarilyallocuted to the facts constituting the crime while under oath at the plea proceeding, andnothing in the defendant's factual recitation cast doubt upon his guilt, negated anessential element of the crime, or called into question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v McNair, 13 NY3d821, 822 [2009]; People vPollidore, 123 AD3d 1058, 1059 [2014]; People v Gomez, 114 AD3d 701, 701-702 [2014]; People v Kelly, 50 AD3d921 [2008]). Furthermore, contrary to the defendant's further contention, thepostplea statement attributed to the defendant in the presentence report did not obligatethe sentencing court to conduct a sua sponte inquiry into the validity of the defendant'splea of guilty (see People vGarcia-Cruz, 138 AD3d 1414 [2016]; People v Bryan, 129 AD3d 524 [2015]; People vPollidore, 123 AD3d at 1059; People v Appling, 94 AD3d 1135, 1136 [2012]; People v Taylor, 60 AD3d708, 709 [2009]).
The defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel issimilarly without merit (see People v Pollidore, 123 AD3d at 1059), as the recorddemonstrates that he received meaningful representation at his plea and sentencing(see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Solis, 111 AD3d654, 656 [2013]). Mastro, J.P., Hall, Sgroi and Barros, JJ., concur.