People v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 13 March 2014
• Citation: 981 N.Y.S.2d 488,115 A.D.3d 1066,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 01641
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Terrence JOHNSON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

115 A.D.3d 1066
981 N.Y.S.2d 488
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 01641

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Terrence JOHNSON, Appellant.

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

March 13, 2014.

[981 N.Y.S.2d 489]

Keeley A. Maloney, Albany, for appellant.

P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Steven M. Sharp of counsel), for respondent.

Before: PETERS, P.J., STEIN, McCARTHY and GARRY, JJ.

GARRY, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Breslin, J.), rendered August 29, 2012 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and waived his right to appeal. Pursuant to the plea agreement, he was sentenced as a second felony offender to a 5 1/2–year prison term followed by two years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals, and we affirm.

Following entry of his plea and during the course of his presentencing interview, defendant made remarks to the probation officer denying that he had been

[981 N.Y.S.2d 490]

aware of possessing the drugs underlying his conviction. Thereafter, at sentencing, Supreme Court specifically questioned defendant regarding these statements, asking repeatedly whether he wished to either make any statement to the court or withdraw his guilty plea, and he consistently answered “no.” As there is no indication in the record that defendant moved at any time thereafter to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, his claim that the court erred in proceeding to sentence defendant in accord with his plea agreement is not preserved for our review ( see People v. Colon, 106 A.D.3d 1367, 1368, 966 N.Y.S.2d 269 [2013] ). Nor does the record reveal that the narrow exception to the preservation rule is applicable ( see People v. Ferro, 101 A.D.3d 1243, 1244, 956 N.Y.S.2d 225 [2012],lv. denied20 N.Y.3d 1098, 965 N.Y.S.2d 794, 988 N.E.2d 532 [2013] ).

Supreme Court took the necessary precautionary steps throughout the course of the proceedings to ensure that defendant's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. The court thoroughly explained the rights that defendant was forfeiting and the consequences of the plea, making a series of pertinent inquiries. The record thus fully demonstrates that defendant, who was represented by counsel, voluntarily entered the plea with knowledge and understanding ( see People v. Youngblood, 107 A.D.3d...