People v. Loftus

• Decision Date: 06 May 2020
• Docket Number: Ind. No. 95/12,2013–02589
• Citation: 183 A.D.3d 631,121 N.Y.S.3d 635 (Mem)
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Christopher LOFTUS, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

183 A.D.3d 631

121 N.Y.S.3d 635 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Christopher LOFTUS, appellant.

2013–02589

Ind. No. 95/12

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

Argued—December 5, 2019

May 6, 2020

Thomas J. Whalen, Dover Plains, NY, for appellant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kristen A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Stephen L. Greller, J.), rendered February 27, 2013, convicting him of rape in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant entered a plea of guilty to one count of rape in the first degree, admitting that he had sexual intercourse with an unconscious 14–year–old girl. The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw the plea (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665–666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Ospina, 175 A.D.3d 513, 514, 107 N.Y.S.3d 59 ). Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, the exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here, since the plea allocution did not cast significant doubt upon the defendant's guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of the plea (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Peralta, 171 A.D.3d 948, 95 N.Y.S.3d 887 ). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit, as the record as a whole affirmatively demonstrates that the defendant entered his plea of guilty knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v. Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d 375, 383, 23 N.Y.S.3d 124, 44 N.E.3d 199 ).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, his factual recitation during the plea allocution did not impose upon the County Court a duty to inquire about a possible intoxication defense (see People v. Sierra, 256 A.D.2d 598, 599, 683 N.Y.S.2d 563 ; People v. Suba, 130 A.D.2d 526, 527, 515 N.Y.S.2d 106 ). Moreover, since the defendant did not move to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing, and there was nothing in his plea allocution that would cast doubt on his guilt or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of his plea, the court was under no obligation to conduct a sua sponte inquiry into certain statements the defendant made to the probation officer who prepared the presentence report (see People v. Ospina, 175 A.D.3d at 514, 107 N.Y.S.3d 59 ).

The defendant's challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution also is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ). In any event, the facts the defendant admitted during his plea allocution were sufficient to establish the elements of the crime of rape in the first degree ( Penal Law § 130.35[2] ; see Penal Law §§ 130.00[7] ; People v. Perkins, 27 A.D.3d 890, 892, 810 N.Y.S.2d 596 ).

The defendant's contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel is belied by the record, which reflects that his counsel negotiated a...