PEOPLE v. RICO VALENCIA (2023)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Felice J. Muraca, J., at plea;  Tammy S. Robbins, J., at sentence), rendered May 5, 2022, convicting him of grand larceny 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 knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise the issue before the Supreme Court (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5;  People v. Defilippis, 210 A.D.3d 1004, 178 N.Y.S.3d 585).  Further, 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 crime, or call into question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v. Mack, 168 A.D.3d 1100, 1101, 92 N.Y.S.3d 404;  People v. Ramos, 164 A.D.3d 922, 82 N.Y.S.3d 103).  In any event, the defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is without merit.  The record of the plea proceeding demonstrates that the defendant understood the charge to which he entered a plea of guilty and made an intelligent decision to enter a plea of guilty (see People v. Goldstein, 12 N.Y.3d 295, 301, 879 N.Y.S.2d 814, 907 N.E.2d 692;  People v. Marinos, 209 A.D.3d 875, 176 N.Y.S.3d 316).  Moreover, “the defendant's monosyllabic, one-word responses did not render the plea invalid” (People v. Lopez–Hilario, 178 A.D.3d 1078, 1078, 112 N.Y.S.3d 564;  see People v. Smith, 201 A.D.3d 822, 823, 157 N.Y.S.3d 391).

BARROS, J.P., MALTESE, WARHIT and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.