| People v Pryce |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 02238 [148 AD3d 1625] |
| March 24, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wayne A.Pryce, Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.) |
Leanne Lapp, Public Defender, Canandaigua, D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse(Bradley E. Keem of counsel), for defendant-appellant.
R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua (Chris Eaggleston of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (William F. Kocher, J.), renderedOctober 2, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of bail jumping inthe second degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty,of bail jumping in the second degree (Penal Law § 215.56). Defendant's contentionthat his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently entered because he did notpersonally recite the elements of the crime to which he pleaded guilty is actually a challenge tothe factual sufficiency of the plea allocution, and that contention is not preserved for our reviewinasmuch as defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction(see People v Loper, 118 AD3d1394, 1394-1395 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 1204 [2015]; see also People v Rinker, 141 AD3d1177, 1177 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1030 [2016]). This case does not fall withinthe narrow exception to the preservation requirement because nothing in the plea colloquynegates an essential element of bail jumping in the second degree, raises a potential defense tothat charge, or otherwise casts doubt on defendant's guilt (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d662, 666-667 [1988]; People vBrinson, 130 AD3d 1493, 1493 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 965 [2015]). In anyevent, defendant's contention is without merit. Defendant's "monosyllabic responses to [CountyCourt's] questions did not render the plea invalid" (People v Gordon, 98 AD3d 1230, 1230 [2012], lv denied 20NY3d 932 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Loper, 118 AD3d at 1395).Further, " 'there is no requirement that a defendant personally recite the facts underlyinghis or her crime[ ] during the plea colloquy, and, here, [t]he record establishes that defendantconfirmed the accuracy of [the court's] recitation of the facts underlying the crime' "(Gordon, 98 AD3d at 1230).
We have considered defendant's challenge to the severity of the agreed-upon sentence andconclude that it is without merit. Present—Smith, J.P., Carni, NeMoyer, Curran andTroutman, JJ.