Opinion
KA 00-01191
June 14, 2002.
Appeal from a judgment of Steuben County Court (Furfure, J.), entered February 28, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of felony driving while intoxicated.
D.J. J.A. CIRANDO, ESQS., SYRACUSE (MICKELLE A. OLAWOYE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
JOHN C. TUNNEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATH (BROOKS T. BAKER OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: PINE, J.P., WISNER, KEHOE, BURNS, AND LAWTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
Defendant was convicted upon his pleas of guilty of driving while intoxicated as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192; § 1193 [1] [c] [ii]) and driving while ability impaired (§ 1192 [1]) and was sentenced to concurrent terms of incarceration, the longest of which is an indeterminate term of 1 1/3 to 4 years. We reject defendant's contention that the State Trooper lacked reasonable suspicion to justify the stop of defendant's vehicle. The suppression court's determination of credibility is entitled to great weight ( see People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761), and that determination should not be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous ( see People v. Holmes, 284 A.D.2d 984, 984, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 919; People v. Stokes, 212 A.D.2d 986, 987, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 741). The State Trooper's observation of defendant's erratic driving and violation of traffic laws provided a sufficient basis for the stop ( see People v. Ellis, 62 N.Y.2d 393, 396; People v. Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413, 420; People v. Schroeder, 229 A.D.2d 917; People v. Wohlers, 138 A.D.2d 957).
Defendant's challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocutions is unpreserved for our review and in any event lacks merit ( see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665-667). "[T]here is no requirement that a defendant personally recite the facts underlying his or her crime" ( People v. Williams 291 A.D.2d 891, 893, quoting People v. Kinch, 237 A.D.2d 830, 831, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 860 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Every, 272 A.D.2d 947, 947-948, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 865).
Defendant's challenge to the severity of the bargained-for sentence is without merit ( see People v. Blount, 288 A.D.2d 837, 838; People v. Wright, 288 A.D.2d 899, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 689).