PEOPLE v. FERGUSON JOHNSON (2008)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, one count each of reckless endangerment in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.25) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03 [former (2) ] ), and three counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.39[1] ).   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. Boggs, 46 A.D.3d 1402, 847 N.Y.S.2d 804;  People v. Hamilton, 45 A.D.3d 1396, 844 N.Y.S.2d 797, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 765, 854 N.Y.S.2d 327, 883 N.E.2d 1262), and this case does not fall within the exception to the preservation rule (see Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5).   To the extent that defendant's statements during the plea colloquy appeared to negate elements of the crime of reckless endangerment in the first degree, County Court conducted the requisite further inquiry to ensure that defendant understood the nature of the charge and that the plea was intelligently entered (see id.).   Although defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in imposing consecutive sentences, preservation of that contention is not required (see People v. Fuentes, 52 A.D.3d 1297, 859 N.Y.S.2d 841).   Nevertheless, we conclude that defendant's contention lacks merit (see generally People v. Olds, 24 A.D.3d 571, 572, 806 N.Y.S.2d 687, lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 836, 814 N.Y.S.2d 85, 847 N.E.2d 382).

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

MEMORANDUM: