Opinion
2016–01645 S.C.I. No. 9627/15
11-30-2022
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Dushane FRASER, appellant.
Joseph Z. Amsel, New York, NY, for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Rhea A. Grob of counsel; Robert Ho on the brief), for respondent.
Joseph Z. Amsel, New York, NY, for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Rhea A. Grob of counsel; Robert Ho on the brief), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., LINDA CHRISTOPHER, WILLIAM G. FORD, JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Matthew Sciarrino, Jr., J.), rendered January 22, 2016, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise the issue before the Supreme Court (see People v. Pray, 183 A.D.3d 842, 124 N.Y.S.3d 59 ). Moreover, as the People correctly contend, the narrow exception to the preservation rule does not apply here, as nothing in the plea allocution cast doubt upon the defendant's guilt, negated an essential element of the crime, or called into question the voluntariness of the plea (see People v. Cuenca, 208 A.D.3d 1363, 174 N.Y.S.3d 591 ). In any event, the record establishes that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Braunskill, 206 A.D.3d 821, 822, 168 N.Y.S.3d 347 ). The defendant's contention that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to seek deferral of the mandatory surcharge lacks merit (see People v. Jones, 26 N.Y.3d 730, 736, 27 N.Y.S.3d 431, 47 N.E.3d 710 ; see also CPL 420.40[5] ; Penal Law § 60.35[5] ; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 ; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 ).
The defendant's remaining contention lacks merit.
DILLON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, FORD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.