Opinion
No. 112428
06-23-2022
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert Haas, Appellant.
Larkin Ingrassia, LLP, Newburgh (Brittany A. Kessler of counsel), for appellant. Taylor Fitzsimmons, Special Prosecutor, Fort Edward, for respondent.
Calendar Date: May 25, 2022
Larkin Ingrassia, LLP, Newburgh (Brittany A. Kessler of counsel), for appellant.
Taylor Fitzsimmons, Special Prosecutor, Fort Edward, for respondent.
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Clark, Aarons, Fisher and McShan, JJ.
Aarons, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County (Hall Jr., J.), rendered March 30, 2015, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.
In 2014, defendant was indicted on various weapons charges following the execution of a search warrant on his storage locker. Defendant ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Pursuant to the plea agreement, County Court sentenced defendant to a prison term of three years followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.
Although the notice of appeal contains an incorrect date for the judgment of conviction, we exercise our discretion to overlook this inaccuracy and treat the notice of appeal as valid (see CPL 460.10 [6]; People v Wimberly, 194 A.D.3d 1122, 1122 n [2021]).
We affirm. Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that his plea allocution was insufficient on the basis that his admitted possession of an "assault rifle," an element of the crime, failed to establish that the weapon in question met the statutory definition of an assault weapon (see Penal Law §§ 265.00 [22] [a]; 265.02 [7]). Initially, as defendant concedes, he failed to preserve his contention by an appropriate postallocution motion (see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Dickerson, 198 A.D.3d 1190, 1193-1194 [2021]). We disagree, however, that the issue is reviewable under the narrow exception to the preservation rule, as defendant made no statements that negated an element of the crime or cast doubt upon his guilt or the voluntariness of the plea (see People v Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Willard, 159 A.D.3d 1228, 1229 [2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1154 [2018]). We further note that "'an allocution based on a negotiated plea need not elicit from a defendant specific admissions as to each element of the charged crime'" (People v King, 166 A.D.3d 1236, 1237 [2018], quoting People v Goldstein, 12 N.Y.3d 295, 301 [2009]; see People v Martinez, 79 A.D.3d 1378, 1379 [2010], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 798 [2011]; People v Kaszubinski, 55 A.D.3d 1133, 1136 [2008], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 855 [2009]). Even if the narrow exception to the preservation rule was triggered, the plea colloquy reflects that defendant understood the charge and made a knowing, voluntary and intelligent decision to plead guilty (see People v Goldstein, 12 N.Y.3d at 301; People v Woods, 147 A.D.3d 1156, 1157 [2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1089 [2017]; People v Martinez, 79 A.D.3d at 1379). In view of the foregoing, we decline defendant's invitation to vacate his plea in the interest of justice (see People v Grainger, 199 A.D.3d 1070, 1072 [2021]).
Egan Jr., J.P., Clark, Fisher and McShan, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.