| People v Karadag |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 01517 [181 AD3d 620] |
| March 4, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Muhammet Karadag, Appellant. |
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Edward E. Smith of counsel), for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Edward A. Bannan of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County(Martin Efman, J.), rendered October 23, 2013, convicting him of manslaughter in thefirst degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
When a defendant pleads guilty to a crime, he or she generally must move towithdraw the plea or otherwise object to its entry prior to the imposition of sentence topreserve a challenge to the validity of the plea for appellate review (see People v Williams, 27NY3d 212, 214 [2016]; People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375, 382 [2015]). Thedefendant's contention that his plea of guilty was invalid because the County Court failedto advise him of all of his constitutional rights under Boykin v Alabama (395 US238 [1969]) is unpreserved for appellate review because he did not move to vacate hisplea prior to the imposition of sentence or otherwise raise the issue in the County Court(see People v Palladino, 140AD3d 1194 [2016]; Peoplev Murphy, 135 AD3d 881, 881 [2016]). This is not one of the rare cases wherethe defendant lacked a reasonable opportunity to object to a fundamental defect in theplea which was clear on the face of the record and to which the court's attention shouldhave been instantly drawn (see People v Williams, 27 NY3d at 214; People vLopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]).
In any event, "[a] guilty plea is not invalid solely because the trial court failed torecite a defendant's constitutional rights under Boykin v Alabama" (People v Pellegrino, 26 NY3d1063, 1063 [2015]; accord People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d at 379). TheCounty Court's failure to recite all of the Boykin rights does not warrant vacaturof the defendant's guilty plea, as the record as a whole affirmatively demonstrates that thedefendant entered his plea understandingly and voluntarily (see People vConceicao, 26 NY3d at 383). Furthermore, while the defendant initially asserted inhis plea allocution that his acts of hitting his ex-wife with a bottle and stabbing her twicewere not intentional, the court fulfilled its duty to inquire further to assure that the guiltyplea was knowing and voluntary (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666). In thecourse of that inquiry, the defendant acknowledged that he intentionally stabbed hisex-wife and thereby caused her death.
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Scheinkman, P.J., Cohen,LaSalle and Iannacci, JJ., concur.