Opinion
June 17, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Coffinas, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
By failing to make a motion to the court of first instance to withdraw his plea or vacate his conviction, the defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of the sufficiency of the plea allocution ( see, People v. Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636; People v. Santiago, 100 A.D.2d 857). Nor does the interest of justice warrant a reversal. A guilty plea can be accepted in the absence of a personal recitation by the defendant of all the elements of the crime charged when there is no suggestion that the plea is improvident or baseless ( People v Nixon, 21 N.Y.2d 338, 350, cert denied sub nom. Robinson v. New York, 393 U.S. 1067; People v. Moore, 91 A.D.2d 1050). In this case defendant heard a complete recitation of the prosecution's evidence against him which formed the elements of robbery in the first degree, and was given the opportunity to present his version of the events. Given the consistency of the defendant's responses, the adequate representation by counsel, and the fairness of the plea and the promised sentence, the court properly accepted the defendant's guilty plea without the need for further inquiry ( see, People v. Francis, 38 N.Y.2d 150). Thompson, J.P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.