People v. Vargas

• Decision Date: 20 April 1992
• Citation: 182 A.D.2d 789,582 N.Y.S.2d 489
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Raul VARGAS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 489

582 N.Y.S.2d 489

182 A.D.2d 789

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Raul VARGAS, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

April 20, 1992.

Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Judith Stern, of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen and Keith Dolan, of counsel, Stuart A. Minkowitz, on the brief), for respondent.

Before BRACKEN, J.P., and SULLIVAN, LAWRENCE and RITTER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.), rendered March 10, 1987, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of the sufficiency of his plea allocution (see, People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5; People v. Horn, 161 A.D.2d 492, 555 N.Y.S.2d 759; People v. Hladky, 158 A.D.2d 616, 618, 551 N.Y.S.2d 587). Even were we to find that the defendant's claim falls within the narrow exception to the preservation rule (see, People v. Lopez, supra, 71 N.Y.2d at 667, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5; People v. Thomas, 159 A.D.2d 529, 530, 552 N.Y.S.2d 394), reversal would not be required.

The defendant's belated claims that he raised a justification defense and that he was coerced into taking the plea under the threat of the maximum sentence should he go to trial are flatly refuted by the record of the plea proceedings. The record reveals that the defendant conferred with his attorney several times and the court properly conducted an inquiry to ensure that the defendant understood the nature of the charge, that the plea was intelligently and voluntarily entered into, and that the defendant did, in fact, possess the necessary criminal intent (see, People v. Lopez, supra; People v. Kalwasinski, 160 A.D.2d 732, 553 N.Y.S.2d 802, People v. Thomas, supra, 159 A.D.2d at 530, 552 N.Y.S.2d 394). Under close questioning from the court, the defendant admitted that he intended to cause serious injury to the deceased, lost self-control, and stabbed the deceased. Accordingly, we find no basis for vacating the defendant's plea and reversing his judgment of conviction.

We further find that the defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).