Opinion
2022-00036 2018-01275
01-05-2022
The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Maryann Keller, appellant. Ind. No. 16-01471
Anthony M. Giordano, Ossining, NY, for appellant. Miriam E. Rocah, District Attorney, White Plains, NY (William A. Milaccio and Steven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.
Anthony M. Giordano, Ossining, NY, for appellant.
Miriam E. Rocah, District Attorney, White Plains, NY (William A. Milaccio and Steven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., COLLEEN D. DUFFY, BETSY BARROS, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barry E. Warhit, J.), rendered December 14, 2017, convicting her of aggravated criminal contempt, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention concerning the voluntariness of her plea is unpreserved for appellate review, as she did not move to withdraw her plea or otherwise raise these issues before the Supreme Court (see People v Loftus, 183 A.D.3d 631, 632; People v Leasure, 177 A.D.3d 770, 772; People v Thomas, 139 A.D.3d 986). In any event, there was nothing in the plea allocution that triggered the court's duty to inquire into a potential affirmative defense to the charges based upon mental disease or defect (see Penal Law § 40.15; People v Leasure, 177 A.D.3d at 772; People v Colemanorange, 151 A.D.3d 738, 739). On the contrary, during the allocution, the defendant engaged with the court, indicated that she understood the benefits of the offered plea, and inquired when she had questions about the process (see People v Leasure, 177 A.D.3d at 772; People v Thomas, 139 A.D.3d at 986-987). Likewise, nothing in the allocution called the defendant's guilt into question (see People v Mox, 20 N.Y.3d 936, 938; People v Jimenez, 110 A.D.3d 740, 741; People v Grason, 107 A.D.3d 1015, 1016).
The defendant's contention that the sentence imposed violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 5 of the New York Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Pena, 28 N.Y.3d 727, 730; People v Hassan, 172 A.D.3d 744, 745) and, in any event, without merit (see People v Morgan, 186 A.D.3d 747, 747; People v Miller, 74 A.D.3d 1097). Furthermore, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
AUSTIN, J.P., DUFFY, BARROS, CHAMBERS and FORD, JJ., concur.