Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Lamont McCall GRANTON, Appellant.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Robert A. Schwartz, J.), rendered April 30, 2025, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, attempted burglary in the third degree, criminal trespass in the third degree, possession of burglar's tools, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review because he did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise the issue before the County Court (see People v. Ferrara, 243 A.D.3d 921, 921, 246 N.Y.S.3d 251; People v. Ponce, 232 A.D.3d 741, 741, 221 N.Y.S.3d 659). Moreover, the exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant's plea allocution did not cast significant doubt upon his guilt, negate an essential element of the crimes, or call into question the voluntariness of the plea (see People v. Ponce, 232 A.D.3d at 741, 221 N.Y.S.3d 659; People v. Bermudez–Cedillos, 228 A.D.3d 681, 682, 212 N.Y.S.3d 714).
In any event, the record establishes that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v. Pil–Yong Yoo, 208 A.D.3d 1257, 1258, 174 N.Y.S.3d 274). The defendant was adequately advised of the constitutional rights he was forfeiting by pleading guilty (see Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274), and the record affirmatively demonstrates the defendant's understanding and waiver of these rights (see People v. Mujica, 236 A.D.3d 677, 677, 227 N.Y.S.3d 729; People v. Perrella, 188 A.D.3d 1263, 1264, 132 N.Y.S.3d 800). Additionally, contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court was not required to advise him of the collateral consequences resulting from his guilty plea (see People v. Mujica, 236 A.D.3d at 677–678, 227 N.Y.S.3d 729; People v. Taylor, 60 A.D.3d 708, 709, 874 N.Y.S.2d 531).
CHAMBERS, J.P., WARHIT, LOVE and QUIRK, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 2025–07328
Decided: July 15, 2026
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)