| People v Peralta |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 02723 [171 AD3d 948] |
| April 10, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Segundo Peralta, Appellant. |
N. Scott Banks, Hempstead, NY (Tammy Feman and Argun M. Ulgen of counsel), forappellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Cristin N. Connell of counsel; Matthew C.Frankel on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Erica L.Prager, J., at plea; Robert G. Bogle, J., at sentence), rendered January 23, 2017, convicting him ofaggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty,and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. However,the defendant failed to preserve this contention for appellate review, since he did not move tovacate his plea or otherwise raise this issue before the County Court (see CPL 470.05 [2];People v Kovalsky, 166 AD3d900 [2018]; People v Miller,166 AD3d 812 [2018]; People vRamos, 164 AD3d 922, 922 [2018]; People v Bridgers, 159 AD3d 715, 715 [2018]). Contrary to thedefendant's contention, the exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here becausethe defendant's allocution did not "cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential elementof the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of his plea" (People v Ramos, 164AD3d at 922-923; see People vDavis, 24 NY3d 1012, 1013 [2014]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988];People v Stone, 91 AD3d 977,977 [2012]).
In any event, the defendant's contention that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, andintelligent is without merit. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Court of Appeals has"never held that a plea is effective only if a defendant acknowledges committing every element ofthe pleaded-to offense . . . or provides a factual exposition for each element of thepleaded-to offense" (People vSeeber, 4 NY3d 780, 781 [2005] [citation omitted]; see People v Goldstein, 12 NY3d 295, 301 [2009]; People vRamos, 164 AD3d at 923). The Court of Appeals has stated that "no catechism is required inconnection with the acceptance of a plea" (People v Goldstein, 12 NY3d at 301; seePeople v Seeber, 4 NY3d at 781), and has "refused to disturb pleas by canny defendants evenwhen there has been absolutely no elicitation of the underlying facts of the crime" (People vGoldstein, 12 NY3d at 301, citing People v Fooks, 21 NY2d 338, 350 [1967]; seePeople v Ramos, 164 AD3d at 923). Rather, "[i]t is enough that the allocution shows that thedefendant understood the charges and made an intelligent decision to enter a plea" (People vGoldstein, 12 NY3d at 301; see People v Ramos, 164 AD3d at 923). Here, the recordof the plea proceeding demonstrates that the defendant understood the charges and intelligentlydecided to enter the plea of guilty (see People v Goldstein, 12 NY3d at 301; People vRamos, 164 AD3d at 923; People vWoods, 147 AD3d 1156, 1157 [2017]; People v Nichols, 77 AD3d 1339, 1340 [2010]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit (see People v Cortez, 115 AD3d 757, 758 [2014]; People vBicet, 180 AD2d 692, 693 [1992]).
Accordingly, since the record of the plea proceeding demonstrates that the defendant"understood the charges and made an intelligent decision to enter a plea" (People vGoldstein, 12 NY3d at 301; see People v Woods, 147 AD3d at 1157; People vNichols, 77 AD3d at 1340), we affirm the judgment of conviction. Mastro, J.P., LaSalle,Barros and Connolly, JJ., concur.