PEOPLE v. SANDHER (2004)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grosso, J.), rendered March 4, 1999, convicting him of conspiracy in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made, inter alia, because his factual allocution was insufficient, and because he was not advised that he may be deported as a consequence of his plea.   The defendant did not move to withdraw his plea before sentencing or to vacate the judgment of conviction, and thus his present contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 631 N.Y.S.2d 119, 655 N.E.2d 160;  People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5;  People v. Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636, 467 N.Y.S.2d 355, 454 N.E.2d 938;  People v. Flakes, 238 A.D.2d 520, 657 N.Y.S.2d 936;  People v. Mesquite, 234 A.D.2d 395, 651 N.Y.S.2d 546).   Further, the narrow exception to the preservation rule described in People v. Lopez, supra, does not apply since there is nothing in the defendant's factual allocution which would negate an essential element of the crime pleaded to, cast significant doubt on his guilt, or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v. Lopez, supra at 666-667, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5).   In any event, the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently pleaded guilty (see People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170;  People v. Flakes, supra).

The defendant's further contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to advise him of the potential immigration consequences of his plea is likewise unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Mesquite, supra), and, in any event, is without merit (see People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.