PEOPLE v. REYES (2012)

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (J. Doyle, J.), rendered January 14, 2011, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that she violated a condition thereof, upon her admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon her previous conviction of petit larceny.

ORDERED that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review her contentions regarding the voluntariness and the sufficiency of the allocution of her admission to violating a condition of her probation (see People v. Guzzardo, 87 A.D.3d 1160, 1161, 929 N.Y.S.2d 880; People v. Decker, 83 A.D.3d 731, 732, 919 N.Y.S.2d 880; People v. Rogers, 45 A.D.3d 786, 787, 847 N.Y.S.2d 590; People v. Carden, 27 A.D.3d 573, 810 N.Y.S.2d 365). Furthermore, the “rare case” exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant's allocution did not call into question the voluntariness of her admission (People v. McNair, 13 N.Y.3d 821, 822, 892 N.Y.S.2d 822, 920 N.E.2d 929 [internal quotation marks omitted]; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5; People v. Young, 88 A.D.3d 918, 918, 931 N.Y.S.2d 235 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). In any event, the record establishes that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently admitted that she violated a condition of her probation (see People v. Carden, 27 A.D.3d 573, 810 N.Y.S.2d 365; People v. Padilla, 18 A.D.3d 578, 579, 794 N.Y.S.2d 666; People v. Melvin, 274 A.D.2d 435, 436, 711 N.Y.S.2d 775). Moreover, the court was not required to secure a waiver of each of those rights implicated by a plea of guilty to a criminal offense (see People v. Smith, 255 A.D.2d 343, 681 N.Y.S.2d 548; People v. Hunter, 194 A.D.2d 628, 599 N.Y.S.2d 992; People v. Keemer, 186 A.D.2d 586, 588 N.Y.S.2d 803; People v. Lombardo, 108 A.D.2d 873, 485 N.Y.S.2d 370).