People v. Sidique

• Decision Date: 05 December 2018
• Docket Number: 2017–03795,S.C.I. No. 302/17
• Citation: 86 N.Y.S.3d 914 (Mem),167 A.D.3d 665
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Saad SIDIQUE, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

167 A.D.3d 665

86 N.Y.S.3d 914 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,

v.Saad SIDIQUE, Appellant.

2017–03795

S.C.I. No. 302/17

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

Submitted - June 22, 2018

December 5, 2018

Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Alfred J. Cicale of counsel), for appellant.

Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Thomas C. Costello of counsel), for respondent.

ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., WILLIAM F. MASTRO, BETSY BARROS, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the validity of his plea of guilty, as he did not move to withdraw the plea, or otherwise raise the issue before the County Court (see People v. Ellis , 142 A.D.3d 509, 510, 35 N.Y.S.3d 920 ; People v. Gomez , 114 A.D.3d 701, 701, 979 N.Y.S.2d 828 ). Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, the narrow exception to the preservation rule is inapplicable here, as nothing in the plea allocution cast doubt upon the defendant's guilt, negated an essential element of the crime, or called into question the voluntariness of the plea (see People v. Lopez , 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Ellis , 142 A.D.3d at 510, 35 N.Y.S.3d 920 ; People v. Gomez , 114 A.D.3d at 701–702, 979 N.Y.S.2d 828 ). In any event, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily allocuted to the facts constituting the offense, while under oath at the plea proceeding, and the plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see People v. Ellis , 142 A.D.3d at 510, 35 N.Y.S.3d 920 ; People v. Gomez , 114 A.D.3d at 702, 979 N.Y.S.2d 828 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, certain postplea statements attributed to the defendant in the presentence report did not obligate the sentencing court to conduct a sua sponte inquiry into the validity of the defendant's plea of guilty (see People v. Ellis , 142 A.D.3d at 510, 35 N.Y.S.3d 920 ; People v. Appling , 94 A.D.3d 1135, 1136, 942 N.Y.S.2d 617 ; People v. Kelly , 50 A.D.3d 921, 921, 854 N.Y.S.2d 674 ).

SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.