Opinion
March 4, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
On this appeal, the defendant contends that his plea of guilty should be vacated since he was not advised, at the taking of the plea, of his rights to testify on his own behalf and to have the jury's verdict be unanimous before he could be convicted. Having failed either to move to withdraw his plea on this ground prior to the imposition of sentence or subsequent thereto pursuant to CPL 440.10, the defendant has not preserved for appellate review the sufficiency of the plea allocution ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Hoke, 62 N.Y.2d 1022; People v Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636; People v. Mattocks, 100 A.D.2d 944; People v. Ortiz, 105 A.D.2d 809). In any event, were we to review this issue in the interest of justice, vacatur would not be required inasmuch as the allocution satisfied the requirements of People v. Harris ( 61 N.Y.2d 9; see, People v. Velasquez, 107 A.D.2d 726).
Nor is there any merit to the defendant's claim that his sentence, which was imposed in accordance with the plea agreement ( 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), was unduly harsh and excessive. Moreover, we find no basis to modify the sentence in the interest of justice ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Gibbons, J.P., Weinstein, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.