PEOPLE v. SLOANE (2024)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (Joseph J. Spofford, Jr., J.), rendered March 1, 2022, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise the issue before the County Court (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5;  People v. Garcia, 221 A.D.3d 614, 614, 197 N.Y.S.3d 336).  Moreover, the exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here 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 his plea (see People v. Anderson, 223 A.D.3d 912, 202 N.Y.S.3d 458;  People v. Gray, 217 A.D.3d 882, 191 N.Y.S.3d 483).  In any event, the record shows that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v. Garcia, 221 A.D.3d at 615, 197 N.Y.S.3d 336;  People v. Headley, 197 A.D.3d 1329, 1330, 151 N.Y.S.3d 905).

The defendant's contention that the County Court should have struck a certain statement in the presentence investigation report is without merit (see CPL 390.30;  9 NYCRR 350.5, 350.6[b], [c];  350.7[b][3], [4]).  Moreover, the court did not base the imposed sentence on any alleged error in the presentence investigation report (see People v. McManus, 150 A.D.3d 762, 764, 53 N.Y.S.3d 368;  People v. Dimmick, 53 A.D.3d 1113, 1113, 862 N.Y.S.2d 687).

DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, WAN and GOLIA, JJ., concur.