Opinion
413 KA 13-00699
03-27-2015
Michael G. Cianfarano, Oswego, for Defendant–Appellant. Gregory S. Oakes, District Attorney, Oswego (Courtney E. Pettit of Counsel), for Respondent.
Michael G. Cianfarano, Oswego, for Defendant–Appellant.
Gregory S. Oakes, District Attorney, Oswego (Courtney E. Pettit of Counsel), for Respondent.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:
On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30[4] ), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is not valid. We agree. “[T]he minimal inquiry made by County Court was insufficient to establish that the court engage[d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v. Box, 96 A.D.3d 1570, 1571, 946 N.Y.S.2d 525, lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 1024, 953 N.Y.S.2d 557, 978 N.E.2d 109 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Moreover, the court “conflated the waiver of the right to appeal with the rights forfeited by defendant based on his guilty plea” (People v. Tate, 83 A.D.3d 1467, 1467, 919 N.Y.S.2d 919 ; cf. People v. Boatman, 110 A.D.3d 1463, 1463, 972 N.Y.S.2d 780, lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 1039, 981 N.Y.S.2d 372, 4 N.E.3d 384 ). Nevertheless, we affirm. Defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction and thus failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ). In any event, that challenge is without merit because “there is no requirement that defendant recite the facts underlying the crime to which he is pleading guilty” (People v. Bailey, 49 A.D.3d 1258, 1259, 852 N.Y.S.2d 892, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 932, 862 N.Y.S.2d 338, 892 N.E.2d 404 ; see People v. Darling, 125 A.D.3d 1279, 1280, 1 N.Y.S.3d 717 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
SMITH, J.P., VALENTINO, WHALEN, and DeJOSEPH, JJ., concur.