People v. Scribner

• Decision Date: 14 October 2010
• Citation: 77 A.D.3d 1022,908 N.Y.S.2d 763
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William SCRIBNER, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

908 N.Y.S.2d 763

77 A.D.3d 1022

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.William SCRIBNER, Appellant.

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

Oct. 14, 2010.

Paul J. Connolly, Delmar, for appellant.

Gerald A. Keene, District Attorney, Owego, for respondent.

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

PETERS, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tioga County (Sgueglia, J.), rendered January 16, 2009, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of failure to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act.

In January 2009, defendant pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with failure to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act ( see Correction Law § 168-f[4]; § 168-t) and was sentenced to the agreed-upon term of 1 to 3 years in prison. Defendant now appeals, contending that his plea was defective and the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive.

We affirm. Contrary to defendant's assertion, the alleged deficiencies in his plea allocution are not jurisdictional in nature but, rather, implicate the sufficiency and voluntariness of his plea. In this regard, defendant's failure to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction render these issues unpreserved for our review ( see People v. Bethel, 69 A.D.3d 1126, 1127, 894 N.Y.S.2d 205 [2010]; People v. Scitz, 67 A.D.3d 1251, 889 N.Y.S.2d 306 [2009]; People v. Harris, 51 A.D.3d 1335, 1336, 860 N.Y.S.2d 643 [2008], lv. denied11 N.Y.3d 789, 866N.Y.S.2d 615, 896 N.E.2d 101 [2008] ). Further, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement is not triggered here, as defendant did not make any statements during the plea allocution that negated an element of the crime or otherwise cast doubt upon his guilt ( see People v. Dixon, 62 A.D.3d 1214, 879 N.Y.S.2d 631 [2009], lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 743, 886 N.Y.S.2d 97, 914 N.E.2d 1015 [2009]; People v. Dobrouch, 59 A.D.3d 781, 873 N.Y.S.2d 759 [2009], lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 853, 881 N.Y.S.2d 664, 909 N.E.2d 587 [2009] ). In any event, there is no "ritualistic catechism" that must be followed prior to accepting a guilty plea, and "the extent of the colloquy between the trial court and a criminal defendant prior to the taking of the plea is a matter left to the court's discretion" ( People v. Liller, 116 A.D.2d 919, 920, 498 N.Y.S.2d 222 [1986], lv. denied 67 N.Y.2d 946, 502 N.Y.S.2d 1038, 494 N.E.2d 123 [1986]; see People v. Allen, 79 A.D.2d 1004, 435 N.Y.S.2d 312 [1981] ).

Here, a review of the plea allocution reveals that defendant, through his affirmative responses to County Court's inquiries, expressed both his understanding of his rights and his desire to plead guilty. Thus, were we to reach this issue, we would find that defendant's plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary ( see People v. Gutierrez, 45 A.D.3d 971, 972, 844 N.Y.S.2d 514 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 1034, 852 N.Y.S.2d 20, 881 N.E.2d 1207 [2008]; People v. Wright, 21 A.D.3d 583, 584, 799 N.Y.S.2d 336 [2005], lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 857, 806 N.Y.S.2d 177, 840 N.E.2d 146 [2005]; People v. Davis, 250 A.D.2d 939, 941, 672 N.Y.S.2d 945 [1998] ). Def...