Opinion
August 24, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the plea allocutions has not been preserved for appellate review since he failed to move to withdraw his pleas at any time prior to sentencing (see, People v. Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636; People v Moore, 149 A.D.2d 440). In any event, it is well established that guilty pleas will not be vacated merely because a defendant was unable or unwilling to describe or admit to the underlying facts of the charges where the pleas were entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and with full understanding of the consequences (see, People v. Brown, 114 A.D.2d 1036; see also, North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25; People v. Perkins, 89 A.D.2d 956). This is especially true where, as here, the defendant has a lengthy criminal record, was actively represented by competent counsel, and received the benefits of an extremely favorable plea bargain.
The defendant contends that he was improperly sentenced as a second violent felony offender. Although the sentencing transcript is somewhat ambiguous on this point, it does clearly show that the defendant previously had been convicted of a Federal felony. The crime of which he was convicted, armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a), does not qualify as a predicate violent felony offense under Penal Law § 70.04 (1) (b) (i) (see, People v. Sellers, 168 A.D.2d 583; People v. Grate, 122 A.D.2d 853). Accordingly the defendant is, in fact, a second felony offender (see, Penal Law § 70.06 [b] [i]), and not a second violent felony offender. Since the defendant received the sentences that he bargained for and voluntarily agreed to, and since those sentences are within the authorized parameters for a person convicted of a class B violent felony offense of robbery in the first degree who was previously convicted of a felony (see, Penal Law § 70.06 [b]; [4]), he may not now complain that they are harsh or excessive (see, People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816). We find nothing in this record to warrant the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction to disturb the sentences imposed. Harwood, J.P., Balletta, Lawrence and Santucci, JJ., concur.