Opinion
No. 570421/19
03-15-2024
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Shaquille McLeod, Defendant-Appellant.
Unpublished Opinion
PRESENT: Tisch, J.P., James, Perez, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In consolidated criminal proceedings, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Linda Poust Lopez, J.), rendered June 5, 2019, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal contempt in the second degree, and imposing sentence.
Judgment of conviction (Linda Poust Lopez, J.), rendered June 5, 2019, affirmed.
As defendant concedes, his challenge to the validity of his plea was not preserved and does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d 375, 381-382 [2015]; People v Santos, 140 A.D.3d 499 [2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1031 [2016]). We decline to review defendant's unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal. The record shows that after rejecting prior plea offers on prior dates, defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of second degree criminal contempt in satisfaction of two accusatory instruments arising from separate incidents of domestic violence. In response to the court's questioning, defendant, who was represented by counsel, stated that he was pleading guilty voluntarily and waived specific constitutional rights, including the right to trial by jury, the right to present a defense, and the right to question the People's witnesses. Thus, the record as a whole establishes defendant's understanding and waiver of his constitutional rights (see Boykin v Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 [1969]), notwithstanding the absence of a full enumeration of all the rights waived during the course of the allocution (see People v Sougou, 26 N.Y.3d 1053, 1054 [2015]; People v Simmons, 138 A.D.3d 520 [2016], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1139 [2016]).
In any event, the only relief defendant requests is dismissal of the accusatory instruments, rather than vacatur of the plea, and he expressly requests that this Court affirm his conviction if it does not grant dismissal. Since it cannot be said that no penological purpose would be served by reinstating the charges (see People v Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d at 385 n), dismissal is not warranted and we therefore affirm.