| People v Dunkley |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 08211 [177 AD3d 767] |
| November 13, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Wayne A. Dunkley, Appellant. |
Matthew Muraskin, Port Jefferson, NY, for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Alfred J. Croce and MarionTang of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County(Mark Cohen, J.), rendered May 17, 2018, convicting him of conspiracy in the seconddegree and attempted robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, orintelligent. Since this issue would survive a valid waiver of the right to appeal (seePeople v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]), we do not consider the validity of thedefendant's purported appeal waiver (see People v Manzanales, 170 AD3d 752 [2019]). Thedefendant's contention that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligentlyentered is unpreserved for appellate review because he did not move to withdraw his plea(see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; People v Pleitez-Raymundo,160 AD3d 902 [2018]; People v Spencer, 149 AD3d 983 [2017]). Moreover, theexception to the preservation requirement does not apply because the defendant'sallocution did not cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of thecrime, or call into question the voluntariness of the plea (see People v Lopez, 71NY2d at 666; People vColeman, 164 AD3d 518, 518-519 [2018]). In any event, the record of the pleaproceedings demonstrates that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily,and intelligently entered (see People v Coleman, 164 AD3d at 519).
The defendant's post-plea assertions regarding his innocence contradicted theadmissions he made under oath at his plea allocution, and were insufficient to warrantvacatur of his plea (see People v Dixon, 29 NY2d 55, 57 [1971]; People v Martinez, 129 AD3d1106, 1107 [2015]; Peoplev Dazzo, 92 AD3d 796, 796 [2012]). Further, contrary to the defendant'scontention, his responses to the court's inquiries during sentencing did not castsignificant doubt upon his guilt or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of theplea (see People v Williams,27 NY3d 212, 220 [2016]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666). Rivera, J.P.,Austin, Leventhal and Iannacci, JJ., concur.