PEOPLE v. MOORE (2001)

Defendant entered pleas of guilty to crimes arising from two separate incidents upon the promise that he would be sentenced to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment.   However, County Court clearly and unambiguously informed defendant following entry of the pleas that, if he failed to appear for sentencing on February 24, 1999, it would not be bound by its sentence promise and could impose consecutive indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 2 1/313 to 7 years on each felony count.   Defendant agreed to that condition and thereafter failed to appear for sentencing.

 We reject the contention of defendant that the condition is invalid because it was imposed after he entered his guilty pleas (see, People v. Hines 286 A.D.2d 987, 730 N.Y.S.2d 910).   We also reject the contention of defendant that he should have been afforded the opportunity to withdraw his guilty pleas prior to the imposition of the enhanced sentences (see, People v. Hughes, 260 A.D.2d 657, 658, 688 N.Y.S.2d 278, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 972, 695 N.Y.S.2d 58, 716 N.E.2d 1103).   Additionally, by failing to move to withdraw the pleas or to vacate the judgments of conviction, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the plea allocutions were factually insufficient (see, People v. Sennett, 280 A.D.2d 998, 720 N.Y.S.2d 428, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 787, 725 N.Y.S.2d 652, 749 N.E.2d 221).   The narrow exception to the preservation doctrine does not apply here because the plea allocutions do not cast any doubt upon defendant's guilt or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of the pleas (see, People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5).   Defendant received meaningful representation (see generally, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400), and the sentences are not unduly harsh or severe.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: