PEOPLE v. MARINOS (2022)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robert A. McDonald, J.), rendered December 11, 2018, convicting him of endangering the welfare of a child, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.  However, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant did not move to vacate his plea or otherwise raise this issue before the Supreme Court (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Peralta, 171 A.D.3d 948, 948, 95 N.Y.S.3d 887;  People v. Kovalsky, 166 A.D.3d 900, 901, 85 N.Y.S.3d 889;  People v. Ramos, 164 A.D.3d 922, 922, 82 N.Y.S.3d 103).  Moreover, “the ‘rare case’ 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” (People v. Ramos, 164 A.D.3d at 922–923, 82 N.Y.S.3d 103, quoting People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5;  see People v. Davis, 24 N.Y.3d 1012, 1013, 997 N.Y.S.2d 115, 21 N.E.3d 568;  People v. Stone, 91 A.D.3d 977, 977, 937 N.Y.S.2d 630).

In any event, the defendant's contention that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is without merit.  Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Court of Appeals has “never held that a plea is effective only if a defendant acknowledges committing every element of the pleaded-to offense, or provides a factual exposition for each element of the pleaded-to offense” (People v. Seeber, 4 N.Y.3d 780, 781, 793 N.Y.S.2d 826, 826 N.E.2d 797 [citation omitted];  see People v. Goldstein, 12 N.Y.3d 295, 301, 879 N.Y.S.2d 814, 907 N.E.2d 692;  People v. Ramos, 164 A.D.3d at 923, 82 N.Y.S.3d 103).  The Court of Appeals has stated that “no catechism is required in connection with the acceptance of a plea” (People v. Goldstein, 12 N.Y.3d at 301, 879 N.Y.S.2d 814, 907 N.E.2d 692;  see People v. Seeber, 4 N.Y.3d at 781, 793 N.Y.S.2d 826, 826 N.E.2d 797), and has “refused to disturb pleas by canny defendants even when there has been absolutely no elicitation of the underlying facts of the crime” (People v. Goldstein, 12 N.Y.3d at 301, 879 N.Y.S.2d 814, 907 N.E.2d 692;  see People v. Ramos, 164 A.D.3d at 923, 82 N.Y.S.3d 103).  Rather, “[i]t is enough that the allocution shows that the defendant understood the charges and made an intelligent decision to enter a plea” (People v. Goldstein, 12 N.Y.3d at 301, 879 N.Y.S.2d 814, 907 N.E.2d 692;  see People v. Ramos, 164 A.D.3d at 923, 82 N.Y.S.3d 103).  Here, the record of the plea proceeding demonstrates that the defendant understood the charges and intelligently decided to enter a plea of guilty (see People v. Goldstein, 12 N.Y.3d at 301, 879 N.Y.S.2d 814, 907 N.E.2d 692;  People v. Ramos, 164 A.D.3d at 923, 82 N.Y.S.3d 103).

DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, MALTESE and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.