Opinion
No. 2018-05774 Ind. No. 2331/14
08-04-2021
The People, etc., respondent, v. John R. Steele, appellant.
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Felice B. Milani and Kirk R. Brandt of counsel; Devin Loguerico on the brief), for appellant. Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Alfred J. Croce and Thomas C. Costello of counsel), for respondent.
Argued - May 20, 2021
D67117 Y/htr
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Felice B. Milani and Kirk R. Brandt of counsel; Devin Loguerico on the brief), for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Alfred J. Croce and Thomas C. Costello of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P. LEONARD B. AUSTIN SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Richard Ambro, J.), rendered November 23, 2015, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court should have conducted a further inquiry before imposing sentence, based upon certain postplea assertions made by him, is unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise the issue before the court (see People v Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665; People v Barrow, 187 A.D.3d 1034, 1034; People v Lopez-Hilario, 178 A.D.3d 1078, 1078; People v Anderson, 170 A.D.3d 878, 878). Moreover, the exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant's allocution did not cast significant doubt on his 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; People v Barrow, 187 A.D.3d at 1034; People v Anderson, 170 A.D.3d at 878). In any event, the defendant's postplea statements at sentencing did not obligate the court to conduct a sua sponte inquiry concerning a possible justification defense (see People v Barrow, 187 A.D.3d at 1035; People v Anderson, 170 A.D.3d at 878; People v Ropiza, 100 A.D.3d 935, 936).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
MASTRO, J.P., AUSTIN, HINDS-RADIX and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.