PEOPLE v. WHIPPLE (2007)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her, upon a plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the second degree (Penal Law § 155.40[1] ).   Defendant failed to move to withdraw her plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction and thus failed to preserve for our review her contention that her plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered (see People v. Peterson, 35 A.D.3d 1195, 825 N.Y.S.2d 622;  People v. DeJesus, 248 A.D.2d 1023, 670 N.Y.S.2d 140, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 878, 678 N.Y.S.2d 26, 700 N.E.2d 564).   In any event, we conclude that defendant's contention lacks merit.   The record establishes that defendant confirmed the accuracy of Supreme Court's recitation of the facts underlying the crime, and contrary to her contention, there is no requirement that she personally recite those facts (see People v. Gunn, 35 A.D.3d 1243, 825 N.Y.S.2d 870;  People v. Spikes, 28 A.D.3d 1101, 1102, 813 N.Y.S.2d 602, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 818, 822 N.Y.S.2d 493, 855 N.E.2d 809).   Finally, even assuming, arguendo, that defendant is correct that her waiver of the right to appeal is invalid and thus that the challenge to the severity of the sentence is properly before us (see generally People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145), we nevertheless conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

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

MEMORANDUM: