Opinion
No. 2022-01833 Ind. No. 21/21
02-15-2023
The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Roberto Guzman, appellant.
Thomas N.N. Angell, Poughkeepsie, NY (Steven Levine of counsel; Robert Bleakley on the brief), for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Amie M. Johnson of counsel), for respondent.
Thomas N.N. Angell, Poughkeepsie, NY (Steven Levine of counsel; Robert Bleakley on the brief), for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Amie M. Johnson of counsel), for respondent.
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P. REINALDO E. RIVERA JOSEPH J. MALTESE LARA J. GENOVESI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Edward T. McLoughlin, J.), rendered January 10, 2022, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent, since he did not move to withdraw his plea on this ground prior to the imposition of sentence or otherwise raise the issue before the County Court (see People v Garner, 198 A.D.3d 813, 813-814; People v King, 169 A.D.3d 1060, 1061).
In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant's plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v Garner, 198 A.D.3d at 814). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court was not obligated to advise him that the sentence imposed for the instant offense would run consecutively to any undischarged sentence on a prior conviction pursuant to Penal Law § 70.25(2-a) (see People v Belliard, 20 N.Y.3d 381, 389). Further, the record reflects that, at the plea proceeding, the court corrected its initial misstatement of the maximum possible sentence, and the defendant thereafter consulted with his attorney and indicated that he wished to proceed with the plea agreement (cf. People v Keller, 168 A.D.3d 1098). The circumstances of the plea in its totality establish that it was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered (see People v Garcia, 92 N.Y.2d 869, 870-871).
BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., RIVERA, MALTESE and GENOVESI, JJ., concur.