People v. Warren

176 A.D.3d 1504

109 N.Y.S.3d 689 (Mem)

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Michael R. WARREN, Appellant.

109721

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

Calendar Date: September 3, 2019

Decided and Entered: October 31, 2019

Karen L. Leahy, Cortland, for appellant.

Joseph A. McBride, District Attorney, Norwich (Hannah E.C. Moore, New York State Prosecutors Training Institute, Inc., Albany, of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Clark, Mulvey and Pritzker, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Mulvey, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Dooley, J.), rendered September 7, 2017, convicting defendant upon his guilty plea of the crimes of burglary in the second degree (two counts) and attempted burglary in the second degree (two counts).

Defendant was charged in a four-count indictment with two counts of burglary in the second degree and two counts of attempted burglary in the second degree. He pleaded guilty to the entire indictment and County Court sentenced him to a prison term of eight years, followed by five years of postrelease supervision, for each count of burglary in the second degree and to a prison term of five years, followed by three years of postrelease supervision, for each count of attempted burglary in the second degree, all to run concurrently. Defendant appeals.

We affirm. By pleading guilty, defendant forfeited his right to appellate review of his claim concerning the People's compliance with the notice requirements of CPL 710.30 (see People v. Taylor, 65 N.Y.2d 1, 6–7, 489 N.Y.S.2d 152, 478 N.E.2d 755 [1985] ; People v. Perkins, 140 A.D.3d 1401, 1403, 33 N.Y.S.3d 584 [2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1126, 51 N.Y.S.3d 22, 73 N.E.3d 362 [2016] ; People v. Irvis, 301 A.D.2d 782, 783, 754 N.Y.S.2d 693 [2003], lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 655, 760 N.Y.S.2d 119, 790 N.E.2d 293 [2003] ; People v. Jackson, 245 A.D.2d 964, 964, 667 N.Y.S.2d 133 [1997], lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 926, 670 N.Y.S.2d 408, 693 N.E.2d 755 [1998] ), his challenge to County Court's denial of his motion for an adjournment (see generally People v. Di Donato, 87 N.Y.2d 992, 993, 642 N.Y.S.2d 616, 665 N.E.2d 186 [1996] ; People v. Alfone, 206 A.D.2d 775, 776, 615 N.Y.S.2d 110 [1994], lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 1028, 623 N.Y.S.2d 184, 647 N.E.2d 456 [1995] ; People v. Welcome, 184 A.D.2d 916, 916, 587 N.Y.S.2d 229 [1992], lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 935, 589 N.Y.S.2d 863, 603 N.E.2d 968 [1992] ), and his challenge to the court's Sandoval ruling (see People v. Duggins, 161 A.D.3d 1445, 1446, 77 N.Y.S.3d 765 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 937, 84 N.Y.S.3d 863, 109 N.E.3d 1163 [2018] ; People v. Ingram, 128 A.D.3d 1404, 1404, 8 N.Y.S.3d 528 [2015], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 1202, 16 N.Y.S.3d 525, 37 N.E.3d 1168 [2015] ; People v. Nichols, 277 A.D.2d 715, 718, 715 N.Y.S.2d 783 [2000] ). To the extent that defendant is challenging the voluntariness of his plea by claiming that County Court's alleged erroneous rulings coerced him into pleading guilty, defendant failed to preserve this contention because he did not make an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v. Putman, 169 A.D.3d 1114, 1115, 93 N.Y.S.3d 461 [2019] ; People v. Lamb, 162 A.D.3d 1395, 1396, 80 N.Y.S.3d 520 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1112, 91 N.Y.S.3d 364, 115 N.E.3d 636 [2018] ), and the narrow exception to the preservation requirement is inapplicable (see People v. Pantoja, 172 A.D.3d 1826, 1827, 99 N.Y.S.3d 811 [2019] ; People v. Young, 158 A.D.3d 955, 956, 68 N.Y.S.3d 773 [2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1090, 79 N.Y.S.3d 111, 103 N.E.3d 1258 [2018] ).

Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Clark and Pritzker, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.