PEOPLE v. MUJICA (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (David P. Sullivan, J.), rendered April 30, 2024, convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs with a child, 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, intelligent, and voluntary 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. Pray, 183 A.D.3d 842, 842, 124 N.Y.S.3d 59).  An 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. Ramos, 164 A.D.3d 922, 923, 82 N.Y.S.3d 103).

In any event, the record shows that the defendant's plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary (see id.).  The defendant was adequately advised of the constitutional rights he was forfeiting by pleading guilty (see Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274), and the record affirmatively demonstrates the defendant's understanding, and knowing and voluntary waiver, of these rights (see People v. Morris, 200 A.D.3d 995, 158 N.Y.S.3d 253).  Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court was not required to advise him regarding the collateral consequences of his guilty plea (see People v. Rodriguez, 202 A.D.3d 999, 1000, 159 N.Y.S.3d 724).

IANNACCI, J.P., FORD, TAYLOR and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.