| People v Smith |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 05258 [187 AD3d 1246] |
| October 1, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1](October 1, 2020)
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Juan Smith, Appellant. |
Adam W. Toraya, Albany, for appellant.
J. Anthony Jordan, District Attorney, Fort Edward (Taylor Fitzsimmons of counsel), forrespondent.
Lynch, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County (McKeighan,J.), rendered October 23, 2017, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofattempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree.
Defendant, a prison inmate, was indicted and charged with one count of promoting prisoncontraband in the first degree. Following multiple court appearances and numerous opportunitiesto confer with counsel, defendant agreed to plead guilty—at a pretrial appearance 10 daysbefore the scheduled jury trial date—to the reduced charge of attempted promoting prisoncontraband in the first degree with the understanding that he would be sentenced to a prison termof 1
We affirm. Defendant initially contends that he felt pressured to accept the plea offer and thatCounty Court failed to expressly advise him of his right to call witnesses to testify upon hisbehalf, thereby rendering his resulting guilty plea involuntary. However, defendant's challenge tothe voluntariness of his plea is unpreserved for our review, as the record fails to disclose thatdefendant made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Edwards, 181 AD3d 1054, 1055 [2020], lvdenied 35 NY3d 1026 [2020]; People v Strack, 177 AD3d 1036, 1037 [2019]). Further, given thatdefendant did not make any statements during the plea colloquy that negated an element of thecharged crime, were inconsistent with his guilt or otherwise called into question the voluntarinessof his plea, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement is inapplicable (see People v Brito, 184 AD3d 900,901 [2020]; People v Lobao, 178AD3d 1238, 1239 [2019], lv denied 35 NY3d 971 [2020]).
In any event, "the pressure to which defendant now contends he was subjected amounts tonothing more than the type of situational coercion faced by many defendants who are offered aplea deal" (People v Blanford, 179AD3d 1388, 1392 [2020] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted], lvdenied 35 NY3d 968 [2020]). Notably, defense counsel provided a list of the witnesses thatdefendant intended to call should the matter proceed to trial, thus belying defendant's presentassertion that he was unaware of his rights in this regard. Finally, we reject defendant's claim thatthe agreed-upon sentence imposed, which was the minimum permissible sentence for a secondfelony offender (see Penal Law §§ 70.06 [3] [e]; [4] [b]; 110.00,205.25 [2]; People v Collins, 134AD3d 1352, 1353 [2015]), was harsh and excessive.
Garry, P.J., Clark, Aarons and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.