Opinion
2014-04-30
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Thomas Abdul HOLCOMBE, appellant.
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, N.Y., for appellant. Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Raffaelina Gianfrancesco and Steven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, N.Y., for appellant.Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Raffaelina Gianfrancesco and Steven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cacace, J.), rendered January 29, 2013, convicting him of failure to register or verify as a sex offender, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered because he was coerced by the Supreme Court and the prosecutor is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise this issue before the Supreme Court ( see CPL 220.60[3]; People v. Franco, 104 A.D.3d 790, 960 N.Y.S.2d 507;People v. Foster, 99 A.D.3d 812, 951 N.Y.S.2d 890;People v. Hackett, 93 A.D.3d 807, 939 N.Y.S.2d 886). In any event, the defendant's contentions are without merit and belied by the record. The remarks made by the prosecutor during the plea proceeding regarding the maximum sentence that could be imposed for the crime of failure to register or verify as a sex offender were not coercive ( see People v. Tavares, 103 A.D.3d 820, 962 N.Y.S.2d 196;People v. Foster, 99 A.D.3d at 812–813, 951 N.Y.S.2d 890;People v. Strong, 80 A.D.3d 717, 914 N.Y.S.2d 679).
The defendant's contention that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered because the Supreme Court did not adequately inform him of the consequences of his plea on a determination pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ( see Correction Law article 6–C) is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise this issue before the Supreme Court ( see People v. Peque, 22 N.Y.3d 168, 183, 980 N.Y.S.2d 280, 3 N.E.3d 617;People v. Murray, 15 N.Y.3d 725, 726–727, 906 N.Y.S.2d 521, 932 N.E.2d 877;People v. Beckers, 94 A.D.3d 774, 775, 941 N.Y.S.2d 515;People v. Vasquez, 85 A.D.3d 1068, 925 N.Y.S.2d 863). In any event, the contention is without merit ( see People v. Gravino, 14 N.Y.3d 546, 550, 559, 902 N.Y.S.2d 851, 928 N.E.2d 1048).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit ( see People v. Barnett, 68 A.D.3d 888, 889 N.Y.S.2d 472). BALKIN, J.P., LOTT, ROMAN and MILLER, JJ., concur.