Opinion
June 10, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The defendant contends that his conviction should be reversed because his plea of guilty was based upon an insufficient allocution or, in the alternative, he should be resentenced because his status as a second felony offender was based upon an unconstitutional prior plea. By failing to make a motion to withdraw his plea or vacate his conviction to the court of first instance, the defendant has failed to preserve the issue of the sufficiency of the allocution for appellate review ( see, People v. Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636; People v. Santiago, 100 A.D.2d 857). In any case, the absence of a complete factual recitation of the underlying facts would not require reversal of the conviction since it is clear from the record that the plea was entered into knowingly, voluntarily and with the assistance of counsel ( see, People v Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 16-17; People v. Nixon, 21 N.Y.2d 338, 353-354, cert denied sub nom. Robinson v. New York, 393 U.S. 1067; People v. Santiago, supra).
The predicate felony conviction, also resulting from a plea of guilty, likewise contained no constitutional defects. A guilty plea is not invalid solely because the court failed to specifically enumerate all the defendant's rights and elicit from him a detailed list of waivers ( People v. Harris, supra, p 16). Further, it was not necessary for the defendant to be expressly advised at the time of his prior guilty plea that the conviction would provide a predicate for a more severe sentence should he commit another felony ( see, People v. McGrath, 43 N.Y.2d 803). Lazer, J.P., Mangano, O'Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.