Opinion
07-05-2017
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Raymond BROCCOLI, appellant.
Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, NY, for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Edward A. Bannan of counsel), for respondent.
Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, NY, for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Edward A. Bannan of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohen, J.), rendered May 6, 2016, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Although a claim that a plea of guilty was not voluntary survives a valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 10, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022 ; People v. Solis, 111 A.D.3d 654, 655, 974 N.Y.S.2d 132 ; People v. Joseph, 103 A.D.3d 665, 959 N.Y.S.2d 261 ), the defendant's contention that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 220.60[3] ; People v. Wolven, 105 A.D.3d 782, 961 N.Y.S.2d 794 ; People v. Elufe, 102 A.D.3d 982, 958 N.Y.S.2d 611 ). Furthermore, contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court had no duty to inquire as to whether he wanted to withdraw his plea since there was nothing in the defendant's plea allocution that clearly cast significant doubt on his guilt, called into question the voluntariness of the plea, or negated an essential element of the crime (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ). In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant's plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646 ; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 17, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170 ).
DILLON, J.P., SGROI, MALTESE, BARROS and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.