PEOPLE v. SPANARKEL (2019)

Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665–666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988] ), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice.  As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits.  Defendant's plea allocution establishes the voluntariness of the plea and contains nothing that casts any doubt on defendant's guilt (see People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 631 N.Y.S.2d 119, 655 N.E.2d 160 [1995] ).  To the extent defendant made a remark that may have suggested the possibility of an intoxication defense and warranted further inquiry by the court, the court's inquiry was sufficient to establish that defendant understood he had the right to assert that his intoxication negated an element of the crime, and that he was nevertheless giving up such a claim.