PEOPLE v. TOLEDO (1997)

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main Jr., J.), rendered August 26, 1996, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

Defendant, an inmate at Franklin Correctional Facility in Franklin County, was found in possession of a sharpened metal shank measuring approximately 61/212 inches long and 1/414 of an inch in diameter.   He was subsequently indicted for the crime of promoting prison contraband in the first degree.   Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree and was sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of 11/212 to 3 years which was to run consecutive to the sentence he was then serving.

 On appeal, defendant urges this court to vacate his plea and reverse the judgment of conviction on the ground that his plea was the product of coercion and was therefore involuntary.   Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea has not, however, been preserved for our review inasmuch as defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see, People v. Lesame, 239 A.D.2d 801, 802, 657 N.Y.S.2d 544, 545;  People v. Russell, 237 A.D.2d 841, 656 N.Y.S.2d 952, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 897, 662 N.Y.S.2d 440, 685 N.E.2d 221;  People v. Perez, 221 A.D.2d 725, 633 N.Y.S.2d 656).   Nevertheless, were we to consider the merits of defendant's claim, we would find that defendant's plea was both knowing and voluntary and was not the result of coercion.

 Before accepting defendant's plea of guilty, County Court engaged in an extensive colloquy wherein it advised defendant of his rights and those he would be forfeiting by his plea.   Defendant indicated that he understood the court's admonitions and that he was entering the plea voluntarily and without having been forced or threatened or influenced by drugs or alcohol.   Significantly, defendant indicated to County Court that he had been given a sufficient opportunity to discuss the matter with his attorney;  defense counsel in turn stated that defendant was entering the plea upon his advice.   Defendant thereafter freely admitted his guilt to the charge.   We reject defendant's claim that he was coerced into pleading guilty because he had only one day to consider the plea offer.   We have routinely held that the fact that a defendant must accept or reject a plea offer within a short period of time does not, without more, amount to coercion (see, People v. Lesame, supra, at 545;  People v. Berezansky, 229 A.D.2d 768, 770, 646 N.Y.S.2d 574, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 919, 654 N.Y.S.2d 721, 677 N.E.2d 293).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

CARPINELLO, Justice.

CARDONA, P.J., and MERCURE, WHITE and PETERS, JJ., concur.