Opinion
06-08-2016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Matthew LEVERICH, appellant.
Thomas T. Keating, Dobbs Ferry, NY, for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
Thomas T. Keating, Dobbs Ferry, NY, for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, BETSY BARROS, and VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
Opinion Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Dutchess County (Greller, J.), both rendered May 6, 2014, convicting him of burglary in the third degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree under Superior Court Information No. 208/13, and burglary in the third degree and petit larceny under Superior Court Information No. 289/13, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant's contentions that the subject Superior Court Informations and the waivers of indictment were invalid because they did not contain certain oral amendments made by the County Court at the request of the defendant are forfeited by his pleas of guilty (see People v. Levin, 57 N.Y.2d 1008, 457 N.Y.S.2d 472, 443 N.E.2d 946 ; People v. Cohen, 52 N.Y.2d 584, 439 N.Y.S.2d 321, 421 N.E.2d 813 ; People v. Brown, 47 A.D.3d 1162, 1163, 850 N.Y.S.2d 699 ; People v. Wager, 34 A.D.3d 505, 506, 823 N.Y.S.2d 522 ). Additionally, the defendant's contention that his plea of guilty to burglary in the third degree under Superior Court Information No. 289/13 was defective because that Superior Court Information did not contain the offense charged in the felony complaint has been forfeited by his plea of guilty (see People v. White, 38 A.D.3d 320, 831 N.Y.S.2d 410 ).
The defendant's contention that his pleas of guilty were not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent because the allocutions to each count of burglary in the third degree were factually insufficient is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his pleas (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Sanchez, 122 A.D.3d 646, 994 N.Y.S.2d 427 ). Furthermore, contrary to the defendant's contention, the exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant's plea allocutions did not cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of the crimes, or call into question the voluntariness of his pleas (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. McClinton, 118 A.D.3d 915, 987 N.Y.S.2d 241 ). We decline to review these contentions in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
The defendant's contention that his pleas of guilty were not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent because the County Court imposed concurrent sentences upon the misdemeanor convictions, which was not specified in the judicial diversion contract, is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not move to withdraw his pleas on this ground or otherwise raise this issue in the County Court (see People v. Williams, 27 N.Y.3d 212, 32 N.Y.S.3d 17, 51 N.E.3d 528 [2016] ; People
v. Crowder, 24 N.Y.3d 1134, 1136–1137, 3 N.Y.S.3d 309, 26 N.E.3d 1164 ; People v. Peque, 22 N.Y.3d 168, 182, 980 N.Y.S.2d 280, 3 N.E.3d 617 ; People v. Murray, 15 N.Y.3d 725, 727, 906 N.Y.S.2d 521, 932 N.E.2d 877 ; People v. Russo, 133 A.D.3d 895, 895–896, 21 N.Y.S.3d 286 ). We decline to review this contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
The sentences imposed were not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.