Opinion
June 24, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lane, J.).
Judgments affirmed.
On this appeal, the defendant contends that his pleas of guilty should be vacated because he was not advised at the taking of the pleas of his "Constitutional right to force the People to prove his guilt to a unanimous jury". Having failed either to move to withdraw his plea on this ground prior to the imposition of sentence ( see, CPL 220.60), or to vacate judgment pursuant to CPL 440.10, the defendant has not preserved the issue of the sufficiency of the plea allocution for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Claudio, 64 N.Y.2d 858; People v Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636; People v. Mattocks, 100 A.D.2d 944). Moreover, were we to review this issue in the interest of justice, vacatur would not be required because the allocution satisfied the requirements of People v. Harris ( 61 N.Y.2d 9).
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that his consecutive sentences, which were imposed in accordance with the negotiated plea agreements ( see, People v. La Lande, 104 A.D.2d 1052; People v. Nelson, 104 A.D.2d 1055; People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816), were unduly harsh or excessive. Moreover, we perceive no basis for modifying the sentences in the interest of justice ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mollen, P.J., Lazer, Mangano and Brown, JJ., concur.