Opinion
No. 2022-00393 Ind. No. 162/20
11-01-2023
The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Victor Garcia, appellant.
Gary E. Eisenberg, New City, NY, for appellant. David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, NY (Robert H. Middlemiss of counsel), for respondent.
Gary E. Eisenberg, New City, NY, for appellant.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, NY (Robert H. Middlemiss of counsel), for respondent.
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JANICE A. TAYLOR, LOURDES M. VENTURA, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Craig Stephen Brown, J.), rendered October 28, 2021, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third 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, since he did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise that issue before the County Court prior to the imposition of sentence (see People v Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665; People v Defilippis, 210 A.D.3d 1004, 1004). Moreover, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here as, although the defendant initially did not admit his guilt during the plea colloquy, the court made appropriate further inquiries of the defendant, among other things, confirming that the defendant admitted that he was in fact guilty (see generally People v McNair, 13 N.Y.3d 821, 822-823). In any event, the record shows that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered (see People v Marinos, 209 A.D.3d 875, 875-876; People v Keller, 201 A.D.3d 657, 657). Contrary to the defendant's contention, certain post-plea statements he made did not obligate the court to conduct a sua sponte inquiry into the validity of the defendant's plea of guilty (see People v Defilippis, 210 A.D.3d at 1004; People v Lopez-Hilario, 178 A.D.3d 1078, 1078).
The defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit (see People v Defilippis, 210 A.D.3d at 1005; People v Rodriguez, 194 A.D.3d 1078, 1079).
The defendant's remaining contentions are based on matter dehors the record and, thus, are not properly before this Court (see generally People v Walker, 189 A.D.3d 1619, 1619).
DUFFY, J.P., MALTESE, TAYLOR and VENTURA, JJ., concur.