Opinion
2011–03110 Ind. No. 90/10
06-05-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. James SANDFORD III, Appellant.
Gary E. Eisenberg, New City, NY, for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
Gary E. Eisenberg, New City, NY, for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the County Court's determination to deny that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence seized from the defendant's house. The police were presented with an emergency situation that justified a warrantless entry into the house (see People v. Rossi , 99 A.D.3d 947, 949, 952 N.Y.S.2d 285, affd 24 N.Y.3d 968, 995 N.Y.S.2d 692, 20 N.E.3d 637 ; People v. Rodriguez , 77 A.D.3d 280, 288–289, 907 N.Y.S.2d 294 ).
The defendant's challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Toxey , 86 N.Y.2d 725, 726, 631 N.Y.S.2d 119, 655 N.E.2d 160 ; People v. Jackson , 111 A.D.3d 960, 961, 975 N.Y.S.2d 467 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant's allocution did not cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v. Lopez , 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Barrett , 105 A.D.3d 862, 863, 962 N.Y.S.2d 673 ). In any event, the facts the defendant admitted during his plea allocution were sufficient to establish the elements of the crime of aggravated criminal contempt (see Penal Law § 215.52[1] ).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
RIVERA, J.P., ROMAN, HINDS–RADIX and LASALLE, JJ., concur.