PEOPLE v. ALICEA (1999)

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered August 7, 1998, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted sodomy in the first degree.

In satisfaction of a six-count indictment charging him with varying degrees of rape and sodomy, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted sodomy in the first degree with the understanding that he would be sentenced to a prison term of 21/212 to 5 years.   He now appeals, contending that County Court erroneously accepted his guilty plea and that the sentence imposed in accordance with the plea agreement was harsh and excessive.

 We affirm.   Initially, defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of his plea allocution is unpreserved for our review since defendant neither moved to withdraw his guilty plea nor to vacate the judgment of conviction (see, People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5;   People v. George, 261 A.D.2d 711, 694 N.Y.S.2d 478;  People v. Chappelle, 250 A.D.2d 878, 673 N.Y.S.2d 751, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 894, 680 N.Y.S.2d 58, 702 N.E.2d 843;  People v. Stockwell, 243 A.D.2d 992, 663 N.Y.S.2d 685).   Moreover, a review of defendant's plea allocution reveals nothing which would cast significant doubt on defendant's guilt or otherwise warrant further inquiry by County Court into the voluntariness of defendant's plea and thus, the narrow exception to the preservation rule is inapplicable (see, People v. McElhiney, 237 A.D.2d 827, 655 N.Y.S.2d 460, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 861, 661 N.Y.S.2d 187, 683 N.E.2d 1061;  People v. Rafter, 234 A.D.2d 711, 651 N.Y.S.2d 639, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 1014, 658 N.Y.S.2d 252, 680 N.E.2d 626;  see also, People v. Lopez, supra, at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5).   In any event, were we to address defendant's argument in the interest of justice we would find that the allocution sufficiently established all the elements of the crime (see, Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.50[1];  People v. Nestman, 239 A.D.2d 701, 658 N.Y.S.2d 145, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 908, 663 N.Y.S.2d 520, 686 N.E.2d 232).

 Finally, considering the offensive nature of defendant's conduct, which was committed against a 14-year-old girl, and the lack of extraordinary circumstances warranting our intervention, we find that the agreed-upon sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Appollonia, 247 A.D.2d 770, 668 N.Y.S.2d 515, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 847, 677 N.Y.S.2d 77, 699 N.E.2d 437).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

SPAIN, J.

MERCURE, J.P., CREW III, PETERS and GRAFFEO, JJ., concur.