Opinion
05-10-2024
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Camille RACONA, Defendant-Appellant.
BRIDGET L. FIELD, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. BRITTANY GROME ANTONACCI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (CHRISTOPHER T. VALDINA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Thomas G. Leone, J.), ren- dered May 23, 2022. The judgment convicted defendant upon her plea of guilty of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree.
BRIDGET L. FIELD, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
BRITTANY GROME ANTONACCI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (CHRISTOPHER T. VALDINA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: LINDLEY, J.P., CURRAN, OGDEN, KEANE, AND HANNAH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree (Penal Law § 165.50). We affirm.
Defendant contends that her plea was involuntary because her factual allocution cast doubt on her guilt and because her plea was induced by an unfulfilled promise that she be permitted to participate in a drug treatment court program. However, "[b]y failing to move to withdraw the … plea[ ] or to vacate the … judgment[ ] of conviction" on the grounds asserted, defendant "failed to preserve [her] contention for our review" (People v. Ablack, 126 A.D.3d 1410, 1411, 3 N.Y.S.3d 703 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 1197, 16 N.Y.S.3d 520, 37 N.E.3d 1163 [2015]; see People v. Morrison, 78 A.D.3d 1615, 1616, 911 N.Y.S.2d 541 [4th Dept. 2010], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 834, 921 N.Y.S.2d 198, 946 N.E.2d 186 [2011]). We conclude that this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, nothing in the plea colloquy "clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant’s guilt or otherwise calls Into question the voluntariness of the plea," and County Court therefore had no duty to conduct further inquiry with respect to the plea (id.).
We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and conclude that it does not warrant reversal or modification of the judgment.