People v Cajigas

People v Cajigas 2014 NY Slip Op 08877 Decided on December 18, 2014 Appellate Division, Third 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 and Entered: December 18, 2014
105629

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

v

HERIBERTO A. CAJIGAS, Appellant.

Calendar Date: November 20, 2014
Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Lynch and Clark, JJ.

Albert F. Lawrence, Greenfield Center, for appellant.

Mary E. Rain, District Attorney, Canton (Patricia C. Campbell, Syracuse, of counsel), for respondent.

Garry, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.), rendered November 9, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of driving while intoxicated.

In full satisfaction of an indictment and an uncharged crime, defendant pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated and waived his right to appeal. Pursuant to the plea agreement, County Court thereafter sentenced defendant to a prison term of 1 to 4 years, to run consecutively to a term he was currently serving for an unrelated offense, to be followed by a conditional discharge of three years to run consecutively to his imprisonment, with the requirement that he comply with the ignition interlock program. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. While defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea survives his waiver of the right to appeal, the issue is unpreserved for our review as the record does not reveal that he made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Fate, 117 AD3d 1327, 1328 [2014]; People v Trombley, 115 AD3d 1114, 1114 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1068 [2014]). Moreover, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement was not implicated, as defendant did not make any statements during the plea colloquy that cast doubt on his guilt or otherwise called into question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Griffin, 117 AD3d 1339 [2014]; People v O'Neill, 116 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]). Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court did not err in imposing the conditional discharge to run consecutively to his prison sentence (see Penal Law § 60.21; People v O'Brien, 111 AD3d 1028, 1029 [2013]).

McCarthy, J.P., Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.