Opinion
2016–00345 Ind. No. 15–00239
07-08-2020
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Jamar S. MURRY, Appellant.
Walter J. Storey, Goshen, NY, for appellant. David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (William C. Ghee of counsel), for respondent.
Walter J. Storey, Goshen, NY, for appellant.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (William C. Ghee of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Robert H. Freehill, J.), rendered December 3, 2015, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his plea allocution was insufficient because the County Court failed to inquire into a possible intoxication defense. This contention is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not move to withdraw his plea in the County Court on this ground (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Ovalle, 112 A.D.3d 971, 972, 977 N.Y.S.2d 401 ; People v. Devodier, 102 A.D.3d 884, 884, 958 N.Y.S.2d 220 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the "rare case" exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here, as the defendant's recitation of the facts underlying the crime to which he pleaded guilty did not clearly cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of the plea (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Lujan, 114 A.D.3d 963, 964, 980 N.Y.S.2d 815 ; People v. Williams, 110 A.D.3d 746, 747, 972 N.Y.S.2d 94 ). In any event, we find that the plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170 ; People v. Sloane, 177 A.D.3d 671, 672, 109 N.Y.S.3d 873 ).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his claim that the imposed sentence was excessive (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ; People v. D'Andria, 170 A.D.3d 881, 93 N.Y.S.3d 873 ; People v. Swen, 164 A.D.3d 926, 82 N.Y.S.3d 100 ).
DILLON, J.P., ROMAN, LASALLE and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.