PEOPLE v. CUEVAS (2026)

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nicholas Iacoveta, J.), rendered February 27, 2020, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 21/212 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant asserts that Supreme Court should have engaged in a more detailed inquiry at sentencing concerning defendant's statement, made during his presentence investigation interview, that he was not guilty and wanted to retract his guilty plea.

Defendant asserts, for the first time, that the court's failure to engage in a more searching dialogue on this point renders the plea invalid.  This claim is unpreserved (see People v. Rios, — NY3d —, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op 00963, *3 [narrow exception to the preservation requirement set forth in People v. Lopez (71 N.Y.2d 662, 666 [1988] ), does not apply to a defendant's “postplea statements at sentencing challenging the factual basis of his plea”] ).  Moreover, defendant neither “moved to withdraw the plea under CPL 220.60(3)[n]or to vacate the judgment of conviction under CPL 440.10” (see Rios, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op 00963, *1, 3).  In any event, defense counsel stated at sentencing that defendant admitted his guilt and was trying to get drug treatment.  Moreover, in response to the court's inquiry, “Mr. Cuevas, you do not wish to take back your guilty plea, is that correct?” defendant answered “yes.”  The record on appeal does not cast doubt on the voluntariness of defendant's plea but merely reflects defendant's desire for another opportunity for treatment.