The People, etc., respondent, v. Freddie Johnson, also known as Frankie Johnson, appellant. (2018)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

The People, etc., respondent, v. Freddie Johnson, also known as Frankie Johnson, appellant.

2011–02870 (Ind.No. 2347 /10)

Decided: January 17, 2018

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P. L. PRISCILLA HALL SANDRA L. SGROI COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

Charles T. Glaws, New York, NY, for appellant, and appellant pro se. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Victor Barall of counsel), for respondent. The defendant's pro se challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665).  Further, preservation was required because, contrary to the defendant's contention, the defendant's recitation of the facts did not negate the element of intent or suggest the possibility of an “intoxication defense” so as to clearly cast significant doubt upon his guilt or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of the plea (see id. at 666).  In any event, the factual allocution was sufficient (see People v Goldstein, 12 NY3d 295, 301;  People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780, 781). The defendant's contention, in his pro se supplemental brief, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel is not reviewable on direct appeal because it involves matter dehors the record (see People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 998, 1000;  People v Williams, 149 AD3d 986). The defendant's remaining contentions, raised in counsel's brief and the pro se supplemental brief, are without merit.