People v. Pearson

• Citation: 972 N.Y.S.2d 359,110 A.D.3d 1116,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 06405
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eric R. PEARSON, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 03 October 2013
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

110 A.D.3d 1116

972 N.Y.S.2d 359

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 06405

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Eric R. PEARSON, Appellant.

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

Oct. 3, 2013.

Abbie Goldbas, Utica, for appellant.

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

Before: LAHTINEN, J.P., STEIN, SPAIN and EGAN JR., JJ.

EGAN JR., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered March 22, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of robbery in the second degree and attempted aggravated assault upon a police officer or a peace officer.

In full satisfaction of a multicount indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree and attempted aggravated assault upon a police officer or a peace officer. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant to two concurrent 12–year prison terms, followed by five years of postrelease supervision, to be served consecutively to the sentence defendant then was serving. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Defendant contends that the plea allocution was not factually sufficient and, further, that his plea should be vacated due to County Court's failure to inquire as to a potential intoxication defense. These claims are not preserved for our review, however, as the record fails to reflect that defendant moved to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction ( see People v. Campbell, 81 A.D.3d 1184, 1185, 917 N.Y.S.2d 419 [2011];People v. Jones, 73 A.D.3d 1386, 1387, 900 N.Y.S.2d 797 [2010];People v. Phillips, 30 A.D.3d 911, 911, 819 N.Y.S.2d 129 [2006],lv. denied7 N.Y.3d 869, 824 N.Y.S.2d 614, 857 N.E.2d 1145 [2006] ). Moreover, defendant did not make any statements during the plea colloquy that cast doubt upon his guilt or negated an essential element of the crimes so as to trigger the narrow exception to the preservation rule or obligate County Court to inquire as to a potential intoxication defense ( see People v. Campbell, 81 A.D.3d at 1185, 917 N.Y.S.2d 419;People v. Jones, 73 A.D.3d at 1387, 900 N.Y.S.2d 797;People v. Phillips, 30 A.D.3d at 911, 819 N.Y.S.2d 129). Notably, “County Court had no duty to conduct an inquiry concerning the potential defense of intoxication based upon comments made by defendant during the ... sentencing proceeding” ( People v. Phillips, 30 A.D.3d at 911, 819 N.Y.S.2d 129;see People v. Ortega, 70 A.D.3d 416, 417, 896 N.Y.S.2d 308 [2010],lv. denied15 N.Y.3d 808, ...