Opinion
2014-07-3
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James M. BONACCI, Defendant–Appellant.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Kimberly F. Duguay of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Nancy A. Gilligan of Counsel), for Respondent.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Kimberly F. Duguay of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Nancy A. Gilligan of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS AND DeJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree (Penal Law § 165.50) and driving while ability impaired by drugs ( [DWAI] Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[4] ). Although defendant “initially made remarks [during the plea allocution] that ‘cast significant doubt’ on his guilt” on the DWAI charge, “thereby triggering the trial court's duty to conduct a further inquiry to ensure that defendant's plea was knowingly and voluntarily made” ( People v. McNair, 13 N.Y.3d 821, 822–823, 892 N.Y.S.2d 822, 920 N.E.2d 929), we conclude that Supreme Court properly conducted such an inquiry and that “defendant's responses to the court's subsequent questions removed [any] doubt about [his] guilt” ( People v. Ocasio, 265 A.D.2d 675, 677–678, 697 N.Y.S.2d 368;see McNair, 13 N.Y.3d at 823, 892 N.Y.S.2d 822, 920 N.E.2d 929;People v. Stepney, 273 A.D.2d 841, 841, 710 N.Y.S.2d 220,lv. denied95 N.Y.2d 939, 721 N.Y.S.2d 615, 744 N.E.2d 151). In view of our determination with respect to the DWAI conviction, we reject defendant's further contention that his conviction of criminal possession of stolen property must be reversed because his guilty plea was induced by a sentence promise for both crimes ( see generally People v. Pichardo, 1 N.Y.3d 126, 129, 769 N.Y.S.2d 791, 802 N.E.2d 141).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.