Opinion
2022-01042 Ind. 18-00038
02-16-2022
The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. David Molina, appellant.
Gary E. Eisenberg, New City, NY, for appellant. Thomas E. Walsh II, District Attorney, New City, NY (Carrie A. Ciganek of counsel), for respondent.
Gary E. Eisenberg, New City, NY, for appellant.
Thomas E. Walsh II, District Attorney, New City, NY (Carrie A. Ciganek of counsel), for respondent.
BETSY BARROS, J.P. VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON ROBERT J. MILLER PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (David S. Zuckerman, J.), rendered October 30, 2018, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his plea of guilty was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because the County Court did not inquire further at the plea allocution as to whether the defendant was aware of the possibility of the existence of an affirmative defense to the crime of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15[4]). This contention is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise the issue before the court (see People v Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 726; People v Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665-666). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the narrow exception to the preservation rule does not apply here because the plea allocution did not cast significant doubt on the defendant's guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666). In any event, the record establishes that the defendant's plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v Goldstein, 12 N.Y.3d 295, 301; People v Seeber, 4 N.Y.3d 780, 781).
The sentence imposed was not unduly harsh or severe (see CPL 470.15[6][b]; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
BARROS, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, MILLER and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.