Opinion
614 KA 12-01040
05-08-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jeremy M. JOHNSON, Defendant–Appellant.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Janet C. Somes of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Daniel Gross of Counsel), for Respondent.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Janet C. Somes of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Daniel Gross of Counsel), for Respondent.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of rape in the second degree (Penal Law § 130.30[1] ). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary or intelligent because he did not “move to withdraw the plea on the same grounds [now] alleged on appeal or else file a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10 ” (People v. Peque, 22 N.Y.3d 168, 182, 980 N.Y.S.2d 280, 3 N.E.3d 617, cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 90, 190 L.Ed.2d 75 ; see People v. Robinson, 64 A.D.3d 1248, 1248, 881 N.Y.S.2d 356, lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 862, 891 N.Y.S.2d 696, 920 N.E.2d 101 ; see generally People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ). Further, we conclude that this is not one of those “rare case[s]” in which, during the plea allocution, “defendant's recitation of the facts underlying the crime pleaded to clearly casts significant doubt upon ... defendant's guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea” (Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, and WHALEN, JJ., concur.