Opinion
June 23, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (George Roberts, J.).
Defendant's claim that he was coerced into pleading guilty by the court's alleged misstatement as to the possible scope of sentence after trial is unpreserved for appellate review (People v. Jordan, 215 A.D.2d 257, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 847), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that the record reveals that defendant's plea was knowing, voluntary and intelligent. There is no reasonable possibility that the court's discussion of possible consecutive sentences in the event of conviction after trial, and its omission of any mention of the "deeming" provisions of Penal Law § 70.30 (1) (e), contributed to defendant's decision to accept this lenient plea offer, particularly since the record establishes that defendant had decided to accept the, plea offer prior to the court's reference to consecutive sentences (supra).
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Tom and Saxe, JJ.