| People v Johnson |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 06563 [165 AD3d 701] |
| October 3, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Gary D. Johnson, Appellant. |
Arza Feldman, Uniondale, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Laurie K. Gibbons and Barbara Kornblauof counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alan L.Honorof, J.), rendered September 8, 2016, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlledsubstance in the third degree (three counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in thethird degree (three counts), criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (threecounts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (three counts), criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (three counts), intimidating a victim orwitness in the second degree, intimidating a victim or witness in the third degree, criminalpossession of a weapon in the third degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourthdegree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review thedenial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppressidentification testimony.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of hisomnibus motion which was to suppress pretrial identification testimony is without merit (see People v Busano, 141 AD3d538, 541 [2016]).
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty to intimidating a victim or witness in thesecond degree and intimidating a victim or witness in the third degree was not knowingly,voluntarily, and intelligently obtained is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL470.05 [2]; People v Singh, 158AD3d 824 [2018]). In any event, this contention is without merit. Although the defendantargues that the factual allocution was insufficient to establish the elements of those crimes, "anallocution based on a negotiated plea need not elicit from a defendant specific admissions as toeach element of the charged crime" (People v Goldstein, 12 NY3d 295, 301 [2009]; see People v Cassadean, 160 AD3d655, 656 [2018]). Here, nothing the defendant said or failed to say in his plea allocutionnegated any element of the offenses to which he pleaded or called into question his admitted guiltor the voluntariness of his negotiated plea (see People v Goldstein, 12 NY3d at 301; People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780, 780[2005]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]). Dillon, J.P., Sgroi, Miller andBrathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.