Opinion
2014-669 OR CR
02-22-2016
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Pedro Rainey, Appellant.
PRESENT: :
Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Middletown, Orange County (Steven W. Brockett, J.), rendered February 21, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of common-law driving while intoxicated and imposed sentence.
ORDERED that so much of the appeal as is from the portion of the judgment that imposed sentence is dismissed as academic, as that portion of the judgment was superseded by defendant's resentence on September 21, 2014; and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction, insofar as reviewed, is affirmed.
At 2:58 a.m. on January 25, 2014, in the City of Middletown, Orange County, defendant was arrested and charged with, among other things, common-law driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]).
On February 21, 2014, defendant pleaded guilty to common-law driving while intoxicated. During the plea allocution, the court, among other things, asked defendant, "[h]ow do you plead" to the misdemeanor crime of driving while intoxicated. Defendant replied, "[g]uilty." The court then asked defendant, "[t]he police previously alleged that on that day you drove a car on Prince Street and that at the time that you drove that vehicle you were intoxicated from drinking alcohol, are those allegations true?" Defendant replied, "I told him I had a drink." The City Court then stated, "I will enter a guilty plea in your behalf."
On appeal, defendant claims that his statement at the plea, that he told the arresting officer that he had had a drink, cast doubt on his guilt of common-law driving while intoxicated, and that such a claim was not required to be preserved for appellate review. Thus, he raised a potential defense, and the City Court should have further inquired of defendant. Moreover, defendant never indicated whether he had had that drink at or about the time he had been operating the motor vehicle.
Even though defendant was sentenced at the same proceeding at which he pleaded guilty (see People Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375 [2015]; People v Tyrell, 22 NY3d 359, 363-364 [2013]), the narrow exception to the preservation rule, which is applied in the rare instance where a defendant's recitation of the facts at a plea casts a significant doubt upon a defendant's guilt of the offense at issue or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Chester, 10 Misc 3d 143[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50097[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2006]), is inapplicable in this case. Defendant explicitly pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated. The fact that he stated that he had told the arresting officer that he had had a drink does not warrant reversal ( see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d at 726; People v Domin, 284 AD2d 731, 732-733 [2001]; People v Springs, 8 Misc 3d 133[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51153[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005]).
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction, insofar as reviewed, is affirmed.
Iannacci, J.P., Tolbert and Connolly, JJ., concur. Decision Date: February 22, 2016