PEOPLE v. LOWMAN (2026)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Kiesel, J.), rendered February 22, 2022, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[2–a]), and sentencing him to a jail term of five days and a three-year conditional discharge, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's contention that his plea was invalid because the court did not allocute him on his prior conviction, which elevated the charge to which he pleaded guilty to a felony (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192[2–a][a], 1193[1][c]), during his plea, and did not arraign him on the special information is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice (see People v. Gibson, 226 A.D.3d 488, 206 N.Y.S.3d 610 [1st Dept. 2024]).

As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits.  The record establishes that defendant's plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.  Although the court did not address defendant's predicate offense during the plea colloquy, the special information accompanying the indictment sufficiently apprised defendant that he was pleading guilty to an elevated felony charge under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193(1)(c)(i)(A) based on his prior conviction (see People v. Mayes, 226 A.D.3d 460, 206 N.Y.S.3d 596 [1st Dept. 2024], lv denied, 42 N.Y.3d 928, 216 N.Y.S.3d 98, 240 N.E.3d 817 [2024]).  Furthermore, defendant was informed that he was pleading guilty to aggravated driving while intoxicated as a felony at multiple junctures by the court, and nothing in the plea allocution casts significant doubt on his guilt (see People v. Sanchez, 55 A.D.3d 460, 460, 865 N.Y.S.2d 592 [1st Dept. 2008], lv denied 11 N.Y.3d 930, 874 N.Y.S.2d 15, 902 N.E.2d 449 [2009]).  The court was not required to arraign defendant on the special information, as CPL 200.60(3) “is by its terms inapplicable in the context of a guilty plea” (Gibson, 226 A.D.3d at 489, 206 N.Y.S.3d 610 [internal quotation marks omitted]).