PEOPLE v. HERNANDEZ (1999)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.41).   Defendant did not move to withdraw the guilty plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction.   Thus, he failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the 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. Hill [appeal No. 1], 254 A.D.2d 726, 678 N.Y.S.2d 564, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 1050, 685 N.Y.S.2d 428, 708 N.E.2d 185).   We reject defendant's contention that this is one of those rare cases where the plea allocution “clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant's guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea” (People v. Lopez, supra, at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5).  “[T]he fact that the plea allocution did not establish every element of the [crime] * * * did not negate the propriety of defendant's plea” (People v. Dewer, 243 A.D.2d 984, 985, 663 N.Y.S.2d 425, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 925, 670 N.Y.S.2d 406, 693 N.E.2d 753;  see also, People v. Jackson, 245 A.D.2d 964, 667 N.Y.S.2d 133, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 926, 670 N.Y.S.2d 408, 693 N.E.2d 755).   Finally, defendant's waiver of the right to appeal encompassed defendant's right to challenge the sentence as unduly harsh or severe (see, People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46;  People v. Watkins, 261 A.D.2d 962, 689 N.Y.S.2d 919).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: