As this claim is supported only by the defendant's own self serving allegations and is not buttressed by any evidence, it does not provide this Court with a basis to find that the defendant's plea was involuntarily given. People v. Wager, 34 A.D.3d 505 (2d Dept.), lv. denied, 7 N.Y.3d 929 (2006); People v.D'Orio, 210 A.D.2d 424 (2d Dept. 1994), lv. denied, 85 N.Y.2d 972 (1995). Moreover, the defendant's claim is rejected as the transcript of the plea proceedings does not give "the slightest indication that defendant was uninformed, confused or incompetent" at the time the plea was taken.
The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the judgment of conviction in a decision and order dated November 6, 2006. People v. Wager, 823 N.Y.S.2d 522 (App. Div. 2006). On December 29, 2006, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied.
fendant moves to withdraw a guilty plea, the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry ‘rest[s] largely in the discretion of the Judge to whom the motion is made’ " ( id. , quoting People v. Tinsley , 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544 ). "Only in the rare instance will a defendant be entitled to an evidentiary hearing; often a limited interrogation by the court will suffice" ( People v. Tinsley , 35 N.Y.2d at 927, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544 ). "[W]here a careful scrutiny of the motion to withdraw reveals that defendant's allegations fail to raise a legitimate question as to the voluntariness of the plea, the court may deny the motion without a hearing" ( People v. Brown , 14 N.Y.3d at 118, 897 N.Y.S.2d 674, 924 N.E.2d 782 ). Here, other than the defendant's conclusory assertions, there is no indication in the record that he lacked the capacity to understand the plea proceedings (seePeople v. Alexander , 97 N.Y.2d 482, 486, 743 N.Y.S.2d 45, 769 N.E.2d 802 ; People v. Wager , 34 A.D.3d 505, 505–506, 823 N.Y.S.2d 522 ; People v. Ramos , 21 A.D.3d 1125, 1125, 801 N.Y.S.2d 155, affd 7 N.Y.3d 737, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222 ). To the contrary, the record reflects that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered.
In any event, the plea allocution was sufficient inasmuch as it showed that the defendant understood the charges and made an intelligent decision to accept the plea (see People v Goldstein, 12 NY3d 295, 301; People v Rampersaud, 121 AD3d at 722; People v Davis, 114 AD3d at 698; People v Barrett, 105 AD3d at 863; People v Cubi, 104 AD3d at 1226). By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his contention regarding the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury (see People v Woods, 115 AD3d 997, 998; People v Devodier, 102 AD3d 884, 885; People v Skya, 43 AD3d 1190; People v Wager, 34 AD3d 505, 506). CHAMBERS, J.P., MILLER, HINDS-RADIX and LASALLE, JJ., concur.
In any event, the plea allocution was sufficient inasmuch as it showed that the defendant understood the charges and made an intelligent decision to accept the plea (see People v. Goldstein, 12 N.Y.3d 295, 301, 879 N.Y.S.2d 814, 907 N.E.2d 692 ; People v. Rampersaud, 121 A.D.3d at 722, 993 N.Y.S.2d 364 ; People v. Davis, 114 A.D.3d at 698, 979 N.Y.S.2d 824 ; People v. Barrett, 105 A.D.3d at 863, 962 N.Y.S.2d 673 ; People v. Cubi, 104 A.D.3d at 1226, 960 N.Y.S.2d 585 ). By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his contention regarding the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury (see People v. Woods, 115 A.D.3d 997, 998, 982 N.Y.S.2d 180 ; People v. Devodier, 102 A.D.3d 884, 885, 958 N.Y.S.2d 220 ; People v. Skya, 43 A.D.3d 1190, 842 N.Y.S.2d 93 ; People v. Wager, 34 A.D.3d 505, 506, 823 N.Y.S.2d 522 ).
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed. The defendant's contentions that the subject Superior Court Informations and the waivers of indictment were invalid because they did not contain certain oral amendments made by the County Court at the request of the defendant are forfeited by his pleas of guilty (see People v. Levin, 57 N.Y.2d 1008, 457 N.Y.S.2d 472, 443 N.E.2d 946 ; People v. Cohen, 52 N.Y.2d 584, 439 N.Y.S.2d 321, 421 N.E.2d 813 ; People v. Brown, 47 A.D.3d 1162, 1163, 850 N.Y.S.2d 699 ; People v. Wager, 34 A.D.3d 505, 506, 823 N.Y.S.2d 522 ). Additionally, the defendant's contention that his plea of guilty to burglary in the third degree under Superior Court Information No. 289/13 was defective because that Superior Court Information did not contain the offense charged in the felony complaint has been forfeited by his plea of guilty (see People v. White, 38 A.D.3d 320, 831 N.Y.S.2d 410 ).
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed. The defendant's contentions that the subject Superior Court Informations and the waivers of indictment were invalid because they did not contain certain oral amendments made by the County Court at the request of the defendant are forfeited by his pleas of guilty (see People v Levin, 57 NY2d 1008; People v Cohen, 52 NY2d 584; People v Brown, 47 AD3d 1162, 1163; People v Wager, 34 AD3d 505, 506). Additionally, the defendant's contention that his plea of guilty to burglary in the third degree under Superior Court Information No. 289/13 was defective because that Superior Court Information did not contain the offense charged in the felony complaint has been forfeited by his plea of guilty (see People v White, 38 AD3d 320). The defendant's contention that his pleas of guilty were not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent because the allocutions to each count of burglary in the third degree were factually insufficient is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his pleas (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665; People v Sanchez, 122 AD3d 646). Furthermore, contrary to the defendant's contention, the exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant's plea allocutions did not cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of the crimes, or call into question the voluntariness of his pleas (see People v Lop
The record of the plea proceedings demonstrates that the defendant's plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Yanez–Mejia, 133 A.D.3d 801, 19 N.Y.S.3d 176 ; People v. Statini, 117 A.D.3d 1089, 1090, 986 N.Y.S.2d 624 ). The defendant's conclusory allegation that he was confused at the time of the plea is belied by his lucid and appropriate responses during the plea allocution (see People v. Miranda, 67 A.D.3d 709, 710, 886 N.Y.S.2d 890 ; People v. Wager, 34 A.D.3d 505, 505, 823 N.Y.S.2d 522 ; People v. Matthews, 21 A.D.3d 499, 500, 800 N.Y.S.2d 722 ).The defendant's challenge to the purported forfeiture agreement that he entered into with the office of the District Attorney is not reviewable on this appeal, since the record does not establish that the forfeiture agreement was made a part of the judgment of conviction (see Penal Law § 60.30 ; compare People v. Abruzzese, 30 A.D.3d 219, 816 N.Y.S.2d 464with People v. Detres–Perez, 127 A.D.3d 535, 535–536, 5 N.Y.S.3d 729 ; see also People v. Burgos, 129 A.D.3d 627, 627, 13 N.Y.S.3d 350 ; People v. Carmichael, 123 A.D.3d 1053, 1053, 999 N.Y.S.2d 476 ).
The record of the plea proceedings demonstrates that the defendant's plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Yanez-Mejia, 133 AD3d 801; People v Statini, 117 AD3d 1089, 1090). The defendant's conclusory allegation that he was confused at the time of the plea is belied by his lucid and appropriate responses during the plea allocution (see People v Miranda, 67 AD3d 709, 710; People v Wager, 34 AD3d 505, 505; People v Matthews, 21 AD3d 499, 500). The defendant's challenge to the purported forfeiture agreement that he entered into with the office of the District Attorney is not reviewable on this appeal, since the record does not establish that the forfeiture agreement was made a part of the judgment of conviction (see Penal Law § 60.30; compare People v Abruzzese, 30 AD3d 219 with People v Detres-Perez, 127 AD3d 535, 535-536; see also People v Burgos, 129 AD3d 627, 627; People v Carmichael, 123 AD3d 1053, 1053).
The defendant's contention that defense counsel's ineffectiveness coerced him into pleading guilty is contradicted by his statements made during the plea proceeding that he was satisfied with counsel's representation, that he had not been forced into pleading guilty, and that he was entering the plea freely and voluntarily (see People v. Bennett, 115 A.D.3d 973, 982 N.Y.S.2d 554 ; People v. Howard, 109 A.D.3d 487, 488, 970 N.Y.S.2d 86 ).The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of the contentions raised in his pro se supplemental brief (see People v. Hansen, 95 N.Y.2d 227, 233, 715 N.Y.S.2d 369, 738 N.E.2d 773 ; People v. Woods, 115 A.D.3d 997, 998, 982 N.Y.S.2d 180 ; People v. Devodier, 102 A.D.3d 884, 885, 958 N.Y.S.2d 220 ; People v. Wright, 95 A.D.3d at 1047, 943 N.Y.S.2d 766 ; People v. Wager, 34 A.D.3d 505, 506, 823 N.Y.S.2d 522 ).DILLON, J.P., DICKERSON, AUSTIN and DUFFY, JJ., concur.