People v Rodriguez

People v Rodriguez 2011 NY Slip Op 02800 Decided on April 7, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on April 7, 2011
Tom, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse, Freedman, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
4729 527/09

[*1]The People of the State of New York Respondent,

v

Carlos Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.



 
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York
(Katharine Skolnick of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Sylvia
Wertheimer of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J.), rendered October 27, 2009, as amended November 6, 2009, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 1½ to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant did not move to withdraw his guilty plea, and since this case does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]), his challenge to the plea is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. The record establishes that defendant's plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and there was nothing in the plea allocution that cast significant doubt on his guilt (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725 [1995]). There is no suggestion in the record to suggest that defendant's ability to make a valid plea was impaired in any way by his mental condition or psychiatric medications, and defendant's assertions in this regard rest on speculation.

The court was not obligated to make a sua sponte inquiry into defendant's postplea assertion of innocence, which was reflected in the presentence report (see e.g. People v Pantoja, 281 AD2d 245 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 905 [2001]; People v Negron, 222 AD2d 327 [1995], lv denied 88 NY2d 882 [1996]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: APRIL 7, 2011 [*2]

CLERK