PEOPLE v. JONES (2007)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), rendered January 5, 2006, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree (two counts), leaving the scene of an incident without reporting, and operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant's contention that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review because the defendant never moved to withdraw his plea (see People v. Clarke, 93 N.Y.2d 904, 905, 690 N.Y.S.2d 501, 712 N.E.2d 668;  People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5;  People v. Oquendo, 38 A.D.3d 686, 830 N.Y.S.2d 665;  People v. Swanton, 27 A.D.3d 591, 810 N.Y.S.2d 375;  People v. Bevins, 27 A.D.3d 572, 811 N.Y.S.2d 429).   The narrow exception to the preservation rule which exists “where the defendant's recitation of the facts underlying the crime pleaded to clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant's guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea” (People v. Lopez, supra at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5) does not apply here because the defendant unequivocally admitted at the plea allocution that he recklessly caused the victims' deaths by taking a drug which impaired his ability to operate a motor vehicle, and made no statements casting doubt upon his guilt or the voluntariness of his plea (see People v. Seeber, 4 N.Y.3d 780, 793 N.Y.S.2d 826, 826 N.E.2d 797;  People v. Sanchez, 33 A.D.3d 633, 822 N.Y.S.2d 128;  People v. Swanton, supra;  People v. Bevins, supra;  see also People v. Taufman, 14 A.D.3d 721, 789 N.Y.S.2d 239).   In any event, the plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see People v. Lopez, supra;  People v. Swanton, supra ).   Furthermore, the statements attributed to the defendant in the pre-sentence report were not inconsistent with the admissions he made at the plea allocution, and did not cast doubt upon his guilt or obligate the court to conduct a sua sponte inquiry into the basis for the plea (see People v. Bonilla, 299 A.D.2d 934, 750 N.Y.S.2d 224;  People v. Toussaint, 294 A.D.2d 129, 740 N.Y.S.2d 878;  People v. Pantoja, 281 A.D.2d 245, 721 N.Y.S.2d 535;  see also People v. Morales, 17 A.D.3d 487, 795 N.Y.S.2d 240).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.