People v Jennings

People v Jennings 2013 NY Slip Op 00108 Decided on January 9, 2013 Appellate Division, Second 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 January 9, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
SANDRA L. SGROI
SYLVIA HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
2011-06397
(Ind. No. 147/10)

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

v

George Jennings, appellant. Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y. (Arza Feldman of counsel), for appellant.




William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Joan
H. McCarthy of counsel), for respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), rendered June 28, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty should be vacated because the facts to which he allocuted do not actually constitute a crime is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Pryor, 11 AD3d 565). Moreover, the "rare case" exception to the preservation requirement, as enunciated in People v Lopez (71 NY2d 662, 666), does not apply. In any event, the facts to which the defendant allocuted did indeed constitute the crime of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (see Penal Law §§ 170.00[1], [7]; 170.10[1]; 170.25; see also People v Briggins, 50 NY2d 302, 306; cf. People v Asai, 66 AD3d 1138, 1139).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
SKELOS, J.P., CHAMBERS, SGROI and HINDS-RADIX, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court