Opinion
November 25, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Corriero, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Defendant contends on this appeal that at the plea proceeding he was not advised of his right to testify on his own behalf and to call witnesses, and that his sentence was excessive.
The fact that the court failed to enumerate specifically and obtain waivers of all the rights that defendant is entitled to at a trial, and which he waives by pleading guilty, does not render the plea invalid (People v Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9; People v Nixon, 21 N.Y.2d 338, 353, cert denied sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 U.S. 1067). We find that the allocution established the requisite elements of attempted burglary in the first degree, and that defendant knowingly and intelligently pleaded guilty thereto (see, People v Harris, supra).
The sentence imposed was bargained for by defendant and was appropriate under the circumstances of the case (see, People v Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816). Lazer, J.P., Gibbons, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.