PEOPLE v. GRANT

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Roosevelt GRANT, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: September 16, 2008

GONZALEZ, J.P., BUCKLEY, MOSKOWITZ, RENWICK, DeGRASSE, JJ. Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Peter Theis of counsel), for appellant. Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Jessica Slutsky of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J.), rendered August 2, 2006, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

 Defendant's claim that the instrument he possessed, a bent MetroCard, did not satisfy the forgery statute is essentially a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury and is foreclosed by his guilty plea (People v. Taylor, 65 N.Y.2d 1, 489 N.Y.S.2d 152, 478 N.E.2d 755 [1985];  People v. Greeman, 49 A.D.3d 463, 464, 853 N.Y.S.2d 557 [2008], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 934, 862 N.Y.S.2d 341, 892 N.E.2d 407 [2008] ).   To the extent that defendant is challenging the sufficiency of his plea allocution, that claim is unpreserved since he failed to move to withdraw his plea on this ground.   The narrow exception to the preservation rule explained in People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665-666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988] does not apply since defendant's factual recitation did not negate any element of the crime or cast significant doubt on his guilt (see People v. Greeman, 49 A.D.3d at 464, 853 N.Y.S.2d 557).   As an alternative holding, we reject defendant's claim on the merits (see People v. Mattocks, 51 A.D.3d 301, 855 N.Y.S.2d 106 [2008] ).