Opinion
2014-05-2
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mark LANEY, Defendant–Appellant.
Joseph T. Jarzembek, Buffalo, for Defendant–Appellant. Lawrence Friedman, District Attorney, Batavia (William G. Zickl of Counsel), for Respondent.
Joseph T. Jarzembek, Buffalo, for Defendant–Appellant.Lawrence Friedman, District Attorney, Batavia (William G. Zickl of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY AND VALENTINO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal contempt in the second degree (Penal Law § 215.50[3] ). Defendant's contention that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered is unpreserved for our review because defendant did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction ( see People v. Davis, 45 A.D.3d 1357, 1357–1358, 844 N.Y.S.2d 739,lv. denied9 N.Y.3d 1005, 850 N.Y.S.2d 393, 880 N.E.2d 879). This case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement set forth in People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5, “inasmuch as nothing in the plea colloquy casts significant doubt on defendant's guilt or the voluntariness of the plea” ( People v. Lewandowski, 82 A.D.3d 1602, 1602, 919 N.Y.S.2d 623). In any event, there is no merit to defendant's contention.
We dismiss the appeal to the extent that defendant challenges the severity of the sentence inasmuch as he has completed serving his sentence, and that part of the appeal therefore is moot ( see People v. Pratchett, 90 A.D.3d 1678, 1679, 935 N.Y.S.2d 519,lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 997, 945 N.Y.S.2d 651, 968 N.E.2d 1007;People v. Mackey, 79 A.D.3d 1680, 1681, 913 N.Y.S.2d 622,lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 860, 923 N.Y.S.2d 422, 947 N.E.2d 1201).
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal from the judgment insofar as it imposed a sentence of incarceration is unanimously dismissed and the judgment is otherwise affirmed.