Opinion
243 KA 21-01282
03-24-2023
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William J. CORNISH, Defendant-Appellant.
LAW OFFICE OF VERONICA REED, SCHENECTADY (VERONICA REED OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. BROOKS T. BAKER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATH (JOHN C. TUNNEY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
LAW OFFICE OF VERONICA REED, SCHENECTADY (VERONICA REED OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
BROOKS T. BAKER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATH (JOHN C. TUNNEY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CURRAN, BANNISTER, AND MONTOUR, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sexual act in the first degree ( Penal Law § 130.50 [2] ), defendant contends that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because County Court failed to advise him of all the rights he would be forfeiting upon pleading guilty (see Boykin v. Alabama , 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 [1969] ) and failed to advise him that, upon his guilty plea, he would be required to pay a supplemental sex offender victim fee. Defendant's contentions are not preserved for our review because he did not move to withdraw his plea or move to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v. Bentley , 191 A.D.3d 1392, 1392, 137 N.Y.S.3d 800 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 954, 147 N.Y.S.3d 542, 170 N.E.3d 416 [2021] ; People v. Gerald , 103 A.D.3d 1249, 1249, 959 N.Y.S.2d 362 [4th Dept. 2013] ). This case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement set forth in People v. Lopez , 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 (1988). We decline to exercise our power to review defendant's contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c] ).