Opinion
2018-06591 Ind. No. 2617/17
06-09-2021
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Corey BYARD, appellant.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Dalourny Nemorin of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J. Dennehy of counsel), for respondent.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Dalourny Nemorin of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J. Dennehy of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, BETSY BARROS, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Matthew J. D'Emic, J.), rendered April 18, 2018, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree and criminal contempt in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court's inadvertent misstatement during the plea allocution regarding the dates underlying the criminal contempt in the first degree count constituted a nonjurisdictional defect subject to the preservation requirement (see People v. Sablan, 177 A.D.3d 1024, 1026–1027, 114 N.Y.S.3d 128 ; see generally People v. Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d 375, 382, 23 N.Y.S.3d 124, 44 N.E.3d 199 ; cf. People v. Castillo, 8 N.Y.3d 959, 960–961, 836 N.Y.S.2d 505, 868 N.E.2d 185 ). The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review this challenge to the plea allocution (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ). In any event, "an allocution based on a negotiated plea need not elicit from a defendant specific admissions as to each element of the charged crime" ( People v. Goldstein, 12 N.Y.3d 295, 301, 879 N.Y.S.2d 814, 907 N.E.2d 692 ; see People v. Seeber, 4 N.Y.3d 780, 781, 793 N.Y.S.2d 826, 826 N.E.2d 797 ). Here, the record shows that the defendant entered his plea knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v. Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d at 383, 23 N.Y.S.3d 124, 44 N.E.3d 199 ; People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 19, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170 ; People v. Ospina, 175 A.D.3d 513, 514, 107 N.Y.S.3d 59 ).
Moreover, the Supreme Court was under no obligation to conduct a sua sponte inquiry as to certain statements made by the defendant at the sentencing proceeding (see People v. Brassard, 166 A.D.3d 1312, 1313, 87 N.Y.S.3d 738 ; compare People v. Pastor, 28 N.Y.3d 1089, 1090–1091, 45 N.Y.S.3d 317, 68 N.E.3d 42 ). Although the defendant argues otherwise, the statements at issue did not negate any element of the crimes to which he pleaded guilty (see People v. Ospina, 175 A.D.3d at 514, 107 N.Y.S.3d 59 ).
RIVERA, J.P., MILLER, BARROS and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.