People v. Santos

• Decision Date: 05 February 1998
• Citation: 247 A.D.2d 651,668 N.Y.S.2d 951
• Parties: 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 1091 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jose D. SANTOS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 951

668 N.Y.S.2d 951

1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 1091

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jose D. SANTOS, Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division,

Third Department.

Feb. 5, 1998.

Cynthia Feathers, Saratoga Springs, for appellant.

Robert M. Winn, District Attorney, Fort Edward, for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County (Hemmett, J.), rendered February 9, 1996, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree and was sentenced, in accordance with the plea agreement, to a prison term of 1 1/2 to 3 years. Inasmuch as defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, he has failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the voluntariness of the plea (see, People v. Lesame, 239 A.D.2d 801, 657 N.Y.S.2d 544, 545, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 941, 664 N.Y.S.2d 759, 687 N.E.2d 656). Notwithstanding defendant's contention to the contrary, we are unpersuaded that this is one of those rare cases which "clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant's guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea" (People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5). Contrary to defendant's contention, there is no requirement that a defendant personally recite the facts underlying the crime to which he or she pleaded guilty (see, People v. Crossin, --- A.D.2d ----, 662 N.Y.S.2d 145; People v. Kinch, 237 A.D.2d 830, 655 N.Y.S.2d 191, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 860, 661 N.Y.S.2d 186, 683 N.E.2d 1060). Defendant's affirmative responses to County Court's inquiries and acknowledgement that he was entering the plea of his own free will and that he understood the consequences thereof, establish that he entered a knowing, voluntary and intelligent guilty plea.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

CARDONA, P.J., and MIKOLL, WHITE, SPAIN and CARPINELLO, JJ., concur.