Opinion
2014-06-20
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony J. LAWRENCE, Defendant–Appellant.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Kimberly F. Duguay of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Nicole M. Fantigrossi of Counsel), for Respondent.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Kimberly F. Duguay of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Nicole M. Fantigrossi of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, and VALENTINO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25[1] ). Defendant contends that the factual allocution raised significant doubt with respect to his intent to kill and, therefore, his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily,and intelligently entered. Although that contention survives defendant's waiver of the right to appeal, defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review by failing to move to withdraw his guilty plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground ( see People v. McKeon, 78 A.D.3d 1617, 1618, 910 N.Y.S.2d 623,lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 799, 919 N.Y.S.2d 515, 944 N.E.2d 1155). “This is not one of those rare cases ‘where the defendant's recitation of the facts underlying the crime[s] pleaded to clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant's guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea[ ]’ to obviate the preservation requirement” ( People v. Rodriguez, 17 A.D.3d 1127, 1129, 794 N.Y.S.2d 543,lv. denied5 N.Y.3d 768, 801 N.Y.S.2d 263, 834 N.E.2d 1273, quoting People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5). Here, although defendant's initial statements cast doubt on his intent to kill, Supreme Court engaged in the requisite additional inquiry, which established defendant's intent to kill ( see Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5). In light of our decision, we do not address defendant's remaining contention premised upon reversal of the conviction of attempted murder.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.