PEOPLE v. SCOTT (2005)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of scheme to defraud in the first degree (Penal Law § 190.65 [1] ).   By failing to move to withdraw his plea of guilty or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5;  People v. Thoreck, 303 A.D.2d 982, 983, 755 N.Y.S.2d 918;  People v. James, 299 A.D.2d 932, 932-933, 750 N.Y.S.2d 227, lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 583, 755 N.Y.S.2d 718, 785 N.E.2d 740).   This case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine (see People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 726, 631 N.Y.S.2d 119, 655 N.E.2d 160, rearg. denied 86 N.Y.2d 839, 634 N.Y.S.2d 447, 658 N.E.2d 225;  Thoreck, 303 A.D.2d at 983, 755 N.Y.S.2d 918;  People v. Williams, 295 A.D.2d 918, 919, 744 N.Y.S.2d 733, lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 714, 749 N.Y.S.2d 12, 778 N.E.2d 563).   County Court's “duty to inquire further is not triggered merely by the failure of a pleading defendant ․ to recite every element of the crime pleaded to” (Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666 n. 2, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: