Opinion
No. 580 KA 21-00607
07-28-2023
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. WILLIAM GAYTEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
DAVID J. PAJAK, ALDEN, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (BRADLEY W. OASTLER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
DAVID J. PAJAK, ALDEN, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (BRADLEY W. OASTLER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, CURRAN, OGDEN, AND GREENWOOD, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Gordon J. Cuffy, A.J.), rendered April 15, 2021. The judgment convicted defendant upon his plea of guilty of attempted arson in the second degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted arson in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 150.15), defendant contends that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently entered. Defendant, however, failed to preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as he "did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction" (People v DeMarco, 117 A.D.3d 1522, 1522 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 1061 [2014]). In any event, we conclude that defendant's plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered despite defendant's family problems that existed at the time (see People v Flakes, 240 A.D.2d 428, 429 [2d Dept 1997], lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 1011 [1997]; People v Murray, 207 A.D.2d 999, 1000 [4th Dept 1994], lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 1014 [1994]). Contrary to defendant's further contention, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. We have considered defendant's remaining contention and conclude that it does not warrant modification or reversal of the judgment.