| People v Depugh |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 01094 [158 AD3d 945] |
| February 15, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Melissa M.Depugh, Appellant. |
Edward W. Goehler, Cortland, for appellant.
Stephen K. Cornwell Jr., District Attorney, Binghamton (Stephen D. Ferri of counsel), forrespondent.
Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.),rendered July 1, 2015, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of attemptedrobbery in the second degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted robbery in the second degree and was sentenced to2
We affirm. Defendant's challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution isunpreserved for our review in the absence of an appropriate postallocution motion (seePeople v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665-666 [1988]; People v Neal, 133 AD3d 920, 921 [2015], lv denied 26NY3d 1110 [2016]). Contrary to defendant's contention, the narrow exception to the preservationrule is not applicable, inasmuch as she made no statements during the plea colloquy that negatedan essential element of the crime so as to require further inquiry from County Court (seePeople v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666; People v McElhiney, 237 AD2d 827, 827 [1997],lv denied 90 NY2d 861 [1997]). Defendant admitted during the plea colloquy that sheand an associate went to the victim's home in order to rob him and that the associate displayedwhat appeared to be a firearm during the commission of the crime (see Penal Law§§ 20.00, 160.10 [2] [b]). The fact that defendant did not display a firearm anddenied having knowledge that her associate was going to do so did not negate an element of thecrime (see People v Vicioso, 116AD3d 1250, 1251[*2][2014]; People v Gage, 259AD2d 837, 838-839 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 924 [1999], lv denied uponreconsideration 93 NY2d 970 [1999]).
Garry, P.J., Lynch, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.