| People v Reddick |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 06887 [175 AD3d 1788] |
| September 27, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v William Reddick, Appellant. |
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Philip Rothschild of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.
William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Nicole K. Intschert of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Robert L. Bauer, A.J.), renderedMarch 24, 2017. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in thethird degree (four counts).
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of fourcounts of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20), defendant contendsthat the waiver of the right to appeal is not valid; that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily orintelligently entered; and that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe. Even assuming, arguendo,that the waiver of the right to appeal is not valid (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d248, 256-257 [2006]), we nevertheless conclude that the judgment should be affirmed.
With respect to his plea, defendant contends that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily orintelligently entered because County Court did not ensure that defendant, who suffers frommental illness, was competent to enter the plea. In addition, defendant contends that the pleacolloquy was insufficient because the court did not ask him to recite the details of the crimes.Neither of those challenges is preserved for our review inasmuch as defendant did not move towithdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Williams, 124AD3d 1285, 1285 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1078 [2015]; see also Peoplev Pryce, 148 AD3d 1625, 1625-1626 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1085[2017]). We decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion inthe interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).
Finally, contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that the bargained-for sentence is notunduly harsh or severe. Present—Whalen, P.J., Centra, Peradotto, Lindley and DeJoseph,JJ.