PEOPLE v. MCLEOD (2024)

Judgment of conviction (Linda Poust Lopez, J.), rendered June 5, 2019, affirmed.

As defendant concedes, his challenge to the validity of his plea was not preserved and does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375, 381—382 [2015]; People v Santos, 140 AD3d 499 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1031 [2016]). We decline to review defendant's unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal. The record shows that after rejecting prior plea offers on prior dates, defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of second degree criminal contempt in satisfaction of two accusatory instruments arising from separate incidents of domestic violence. In response to the court's questioning, defendant, who was represented by counsel, stated that he was pleading guilty voluntarily and waived specific constitutional rights, including the right to trial by jury, the right to present a defense, and the right to question the People's witnesses. Thus, the record as a whole establishes defendant's understanding and waiver of his constitutional rights (see Boykin v Alabama, 395 US 238 [1969]), notwithstanding the absence of a full enumeration of all the rights waived during the course of the allocution (see People v Sougou, 26 NY3d 1053, 1054 [2015]; People v Simmons, 138 AD3d 520 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1139 [2016]).

In any event, the only relief defendant requests is dismissal of the accusatory instruments, rather than vacatur of the plea, and he expressly requests that this Court affirm his conviction if it does not grant dismissal. Since it cannot be said that no penological purpose would be served by reinstating the charges (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d at 385 n), dismissal is not warranted and we therefore affirm.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.

All concur