| People v Broccoli |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 05451 [152 AD3d 536] |
| July 5, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Raymond Broccoli, Appellant. |
Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, NY, for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Edward A. Bannan of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohen, J.),rendered May 6, 2016, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty,and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Although a claim that a plea of guilty was not voluntary survives a valid waiver of the rightto appeal (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]; People v Solis, 111 AD3d 654,655 [2013]; People v Joseph, 103AD3d 665 [2013]), the defendant's contention that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, andintelligent is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Wolven, 105 AD3d 782[2013]; People v Elufe, 102 AD3d982 [2013]). Furthermore, contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court had noduty to inquire as to whether he wanted to withdraw his plea since there was nothing in thedefendant's plea allocution that clearly cast significant doubt on his guilt, called into question thevoluntariness of the plea, or negated an essential element of the crime (see People vLopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]). In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant'splea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536,543 [1993]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17[1983]). Dillon, J.P., Sgroi, Maltese, Barros and Christopher, JJ., concur.