| People v Ahrens |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 08565 [145 AD3d 1322] |
| December 22, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vLawrence Ahrens Jr., Also Known as Larry Ahrens, Also Known as Tom Peterson,Appellant. |
Mitch Kessler, Cohoes, for appellant.
Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Tracey A. Brunecz of counsel),for respondent.
Devine, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Coccoma, J.), renderedOctober 10, 2013 in Schenectady County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty ofthe crimes of arson in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the firstdegree.
In satisfaction of a multi-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to one count ofarson in the second degree and one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the firstdegree and waived his right to appeal. He was thereafter sentenced, in accordance withthe terms of the plea agreement, to concurrent prison terms of 15 years, to be followed byfive years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.
We affirm. Defendant waived his right to appeal and did not preserve his challengeto the voluntariness of his plea by moving to withdraw it (see People v Lopez, 71NY2d 662, 665-666 [1988]). The narrow exception to the preservation rule is applicable,however, as defendant initially denied during the plea colloquy that there was areasonable possibility that a third party was present in the subject building at the time thesubject fire was started (see Penal Law § 150.15), thereby triggeringa duty by Supreme Court to conduct further inquiry (see People v Tyrell, 22 NY3d 359, 363-364 [2013]; People v Rich, 140 AD3d1407, 1407 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 936 [2016]; People v Peterson, 124 AD3d993, 994 [2015]). Supreme Court did conduct that further inquiry and ensured thatthe elements of arson in the second degree were [*2]established which, in turn, confirmed that defendant's pleawas knowing and voluntary (seePeople v English, 100 AD3d 1147, 1148 [2012]). Inasmuch as defendant failedto express any dissatisfaction with the court's remedial action, he has waived any furtherchallenge to his allocution (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 668; People vRich, 140 AD3d at 1407; People v English, 100 AD3d at 1148).
Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.