People v. Flinn

188 A.D.3d 1093

132 N.Y.S.3d 660 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Daniel FLINN, appellant.

2018–05027

Ind. No. 1713/17

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—October 13, 2020

November 18, 2020

Matthew Muraskin, Port Jefferson, NY, for appellant.

Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Thomas C. Costello and Glenn Green of counsel), for respondent.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, BETSY BARROS, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Timothy P. Mazzei, J.), rendered March 12, 2018, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw the plea (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ). In any event, contrary to the defendant's contention, he was adequately advised of the constitutional rights he was forfeiting by pleading guilty (see Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 ), and the record affirmatively demonstrates the defendant's understanding and waiver of these rights ( People v. Sherman, 177 A.D.3d 777, 779, 110 N.Y.S.3d 314 ). Contrary to the defendant's further contention, the facts to which the defendant admitted at the plea proceeding did not cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of the plea (see id. ; People v. Ospina, 175 A.D.3d 513, 107 N.Y.S.3d 59 ). To the extent that the defendant raises contentions regarding the factual sufficiency of the plea that do not implicate the...