Opinion
9692 Ind. 4213/05
06-25-2019
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jeison RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Mark W. Zeno, Brooklyn of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Andrew E. Seewald of counsel), for respondent.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Mark W. Zeno, Brooklyn of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Andrew E. Seewald of counsel), for respondent.
Renwick, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Webber, Oing, JJ.
Defendant's claim that his plea was invalid because the court failed to inquire about a possible affirmative defense to attempted first-degree robbery, when he indicated during the plea allocution that the apparent firearm he displayed during the robbery was a toy, does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 631 N.Y.S.2d 119, 655 N.E.2d 160 [1995] ; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988] ), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for any relief, because the factual allocution did not "cast[ ] significant doubt upon the defendant's guilt or otherwise call[ ] into question the voluntariness of the plea" ( id. at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ).
As the People concede, defendant is entitled to an express youthful offender determination (see People v. Rudolph, 21 N.Y.3d 497, 974 N.Y.S.2d 885, 997 N.E.2d 457 [2013] ).