Opinion
2007-1012 K CR.
Decided March 9, 2009.
Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Miriam R. Best, J.), rendered May 29, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct.
Judgment of conviction affirmed.
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., RIOS and STEINHARDT, JJ.
Defendant, while represented by counsel, pleaded guilty to the violation of disorderly conduct (Penal Law § 240.20), in satisfaction of several misdemeanor charges, and received a sentence of time served. Defendant's current claim, that his guilty plea was involuntary on the ground that the record fails to demonstrate that he was informed of the nature of the charges, is unpreserved for appellate review in the absence of a motion in the Criminal Court to withdraw his guilty plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction ( see People v Rock , 56 AD3d 1053 ; People v Nowell , 46 AD3d 707 ). Furthermore, upon entering his guilty plea, defendant said nothing factual that might be construed as an indication of innocence, which would create an exception to the preservation requirement ( see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662; People v Smith , 55 AD3d 639 ; People v LeGrady , 50 AD3d 1059 ). It was not essential that there be a recitation of the facts of the offense in the absence of any suggestion that the guilty plea was improvident or baseless, and "the record establishes that the defendant's . . . plea was knowingly and voluntarily made upon the advice of counsel whose efforts on the defendant's behalf resulted in a favorable plea bargain from which the defendant derived a substantial benefit" ( People v Doceti, 175 AD2d 256, 256 [citations omitted]). Moreover, the court did, inter alia, inform defendant of his right to a trial which he would be waiving by pleading guilty and inquired into his willingness to plead guilty. It is well settled that "[t]here is no requirement for a uniform mandatory catechism of pleading defendants" ( People v Seeber , 4 NY3d 780 , 781). It was proper for the Criminal Court to accept defendant's guilty plea to disorderly conduct, a violation, even though it was not charged in the accusatory instrument ( see People v Keizer, 100 NY2d 114, 119).
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.