Opinion
May 20, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The issues raised by defendant concerning his plea of guilty were not presented to the court of first instance in a motion to withdraw the plea or by way of a motion to vacate the judgment. Accordingly, those issues have not been preserved for review ( see, People v. Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636). In any event, were we to address the merits, we would affirm.
Defendant contends that Criminal Term erred by accepting his plea without advising him of his right to testify and to call witnesses on his own behalf. It is well established that no uniform mandatory catechism of pleading is required ( People v Nixon, 21 N.Y.2d 338, cert denied sub nom. Robinson v. New York, 393 U.S. 1067). The record before us demonstrates that the fundamentals of plea taking were observed, that defendant freely acknowledged the facts of the crime in response to the court's questions and that defendant's plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered ( People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9).
Because defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter imposed, defendant has no basis upon which to complain that his sentence was excessive ( see, People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816). Mangano, J.P., Gibbons, Bracken and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.