People v. Ferro

• Decision Date: 13 December 2012
• Citation: 101 A.D.3d 1243,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08574,956 N.Y.S.2d 225
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Herbert FERRO, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

101 A.D.3d 1243
956 N.Y.S.2d 225
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08574

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Herbert FERRO, Appellant.

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

Dec. 13, 2012.

[956 N.Y.S.2d 226]

Barrett D. Mack, Valatie, for appellant.

D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MERCURE, J.P., LAHTINEN, MALONE JR., STEIN and GARRY, JJ.

STEIN, J.

[101 A.D.3d 1243]Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of [101 A.D.3d 1244]Ulster County (Ceresia, J.), rendered March 25, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree.

In satisfaction of a four-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree. County Court sentenced him, as agreed, to a prison term of 12 years to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals, arguing that the record does not demonstrate a knowing, voluntary and intelligent plea or waiver of his right to appeal. We disagree and affirm.

Initially, defendant's challenge to the voluntariness and facial sufficiency of his plea is not preserved for our review, as the record before us fails to indicate that he moved to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction ( see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665–666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988];People v. Teele, 92 A.D.3d 972, 972, 937 N.Y.S.2d 692 [2012] ). The narrow exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here, as County Court did not “accept[ ] a plea without further inquiry after the allocution clearly cast[ ] significant doubt upon the defendant's guilt or otherwise call[ed] into question the voluntariness of the plea” ( People v. Washington, 262 A.D.2d 868, 869, 693 N.Y.S.2d 254 [1999],lv. denied93 N.Y.2d 1029, 697 N.Y.S.2d 588, 719 N.E.2d 949 [1999];see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5). Defendant never claimed to be wholly innocent of the charges against him, but did state during the plea colloquy that he had not engaged in the requisite two acts of sexual conduct with the victim ( seePenal Law § 130.75[1] ). County Court fulfilled its obligation to inquire further, however, ensuring that defendant had fully consulted with defense counsel and understood the question being posed, then eliciting his

[956 N.Y.S.2d 227]

admission that he had engaged...