Opinion
No. 2019-11887 S.C.I. No. 2421/18
09-28-2022
The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Michael Cuenca, appellant.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Cynthia Colt of counsel), for appellant. Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, Ellen C. Abbot, and Candi Green of counsel), for respondent.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Cynthia Colt of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, Ellen C. Abbot, and Candi Green of counsel), for respondent.
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P. CHERYL E. CHAMBERS PAUL WOOTEN WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Suzanne Melendez, J.), rendered March 22, 2019, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the validity of his guilty plea, as he did not move to withdraw the plea, or otherwise raise the issue before the Supreme Court (see People v Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665-666; People v Steele, 197 A.D.3d 512, 512-513; People v Barrow, 187 A.D.3d 1034). Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, the narrow exception to the preservation rule is inapplicable here, as nothing in the plea allocution casts doubt upon his guilt, negated an essential element of the crime, or called into question the voluntariness of the plea (see People v Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666; People v Rosado, 177 A.D.3d 664, 665; People v Jackson, 170 A.D.3d 1040, 1040). In any event, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily allocuted to the facts constituting the offense, while under oath at the plea proceeding, and the record of the plea proceeding demonstrates that the plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543; People v Anderson, 170 A.D.3d 878; People v Sidique, 167 A.D.3d 665). Contrary to the defendant's contention, certain postplea statements attributed to the defendant in the presentence report did not obligate the sentencing court to conduct a sua sponte inquiry into the validity of the defendant's plea of guilty (see People v Anderson, 170 A.D.3d 878; People v Najera, 170 A.D.3d 753, 754; People v Sidique, 167 A.D.3d 665; People v Appling, 94 A.D.3d 1135, 1136).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., CHAMBERS, WOOTEN and FORD, JJ., concur.