PEOPLE v. ALAS (2023)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Fernando Camacho, J.), rendered February 11, 2021, convicting him of conspiracy in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution is unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not move to vacate his plea or otherwise raise this issue before the County Court (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 663, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5;  People v. Negriel, 181 A.D.3d 724, 725, 117 N.Y.S.3d 878).  The exception to the preservation requirement does not apply in this case because the defendant's allocution did not cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of the plea (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5).  In any event, the plea allocution was sufficient.  “[A]n allocution based on a negotiated plea need not elicit from a defendant specific admissions as to each element of the charged crime,” and a plea allocution is sufficient if it “shows that the defendant understood the charges and made an intelligent decision to enter a plea” (People v. Goldstein, 12 N.Y.3d 295, 301, 879 N.Y.S.2d 814, 907 N.E.2d 692).  Here, the record demonstrates that the defendant understood the charge and made an intelligent decision to accept the plea.

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., GENOVESI, WAN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.