| People v Gonzalez |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 03144 [184 AD3d 899] |
| June 4, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jorge Gonzalez, Appellant. |
Henry C. Meier III, Delmar, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Meagan K. Galligan, Acting District Attorney, Monticello, for respondent.
Devine, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Schick, J.), rendered February 16,2017, in Sullivan County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofmanslaughter in the first degree.
Following the fatal shooting of his wife, defendant was charged in a four-count indictmentwith various crimes, the most serious being murder in the second degree. In satisfaction thereof,he pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of manslaughter in the first degree and purportedlywaived his right to appeal. In accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, defendant wassentenced to 25 years in prison followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Heappeals.
Defendant contends, among other things, that his guilty plea must be vacated because it wasthe product of a defective superior court information. The record, however, discloses that theonly accusatory instrument charging defendant with any crimes was the indictment and that hepleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first degree as a lesser included offense of count 1, whichcharged him with murder in the second degree (see CPL 220.10 [4], [5]; 220.20 [1];Penal Law §§ 125.20 [2]; 125.25 [1] [a]). To the extent that defendantchallenges the guilty plea as not knowing, intelligent or voluntary, or as founded upon aninadequate factual allocution, those challenges are unpreserved in the absence of an appropriatepostallocution motion, and the narrow exception to the preservation rule is not implicated (see People v Favreau, 174 AD3d1226, 1227-1228 [2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 980 [2019]). Accordingly, we find noreason to disturb the judgment of conviction. We have considered defendant's remaining claims,including those advanced in his pro se supplemental brief, and find them to be unpersuasive.
Garry, P.J., Lynch, Clark and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.