People v Hough
2017 NY Slip Op 02283 [148 AD3d 1671]
March 24, 2017
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
As corrected through Wednesday, May 3, 2017


[*1]
 The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v RonaldHough, Sr., Appellant.

Kathryn Friedman, Buffalo, for defendant-appellant.

Michael J. Flaherty, Jr., Acting District Attorney, Buffalo (Matthew B. Powers of counsel),for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Sheila A. DiTullio, J.), rendered March19, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in thefirst 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 attempted robbery in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.15 [2]).Defendant's contention that County Court erred in accepting his "involuntary and illegal" plea isnot preserved for our review inasmuch as defendant did not move to withdraw his plea of guiltyor to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Lugg, 108 AD3d 1074, 1075 [2013]; People v Burney, 93 AD3d 1334,1334 [2012]; see generally People vPastor, 28 NY3d 1089, 1090-1091 [2016]). Moreover, because nothing in the record ofthe proceedings before the court calls into question the voluntariness of defendant's plea or castssignificant doubt upon his guilt, this case does not fall within the exception to the preservationrequirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Mobley, 118 AD3d1336, 1337 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1121 [2015]). There is no merit todefendant's contention that the sentence is illegal (see Penal Law § 70.06 [6][b]). Finally, even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was invalidand thus does not preclude our review of his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Davis, 114 AD3d1166, 1167 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1035 [2014]; People v Theall, 109 AD3d 1107,1108 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1159 [2014]), we nevertheless conclude that thesentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Whalen, P.J., Smith, Carni, Lindley andNeMoyer, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.