People v. Watts

• Citation: 910 N.Y.S.2d 730,78 A.D.3d 1593
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Perez D. WATTS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Decision Date: 12 November 2010
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

910 N.Y.S.2d 730

78 A.D.3d 1593

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Perez D. WATTS, Defendant-Appellant.

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

Nov. 12, 2010.

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Matthew J. Murphy, III, J.), rendered September 29, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

David J. Farrugia, Public Defender, Lockport (Mary-Jean Bowman of Counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Perez D. Watts, defendant-appellant pro se.

Michael J. Violante, District Attorney, Lockport (Thomas H. Brandt of Counsel), for respondent.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39[1] ). By failing to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant has failed to preserve for our review his contention that the plea was notvoluntary, knowing, and intelligent ( see People v. Zuliani, 68 A.D.3d 1731, 891 N.Y.S.2d 821, lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 894, 903 N.Y.S.2d 783, 929 N.E.2d 1018). Moreover, this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation rule set forth in People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5, because nothing in the plea colloquy casts any doubt on defendant's guilt or the voluntariness of the plea ( see People v. Loper, 38 A.D.3d 1178, 831 N.Y.S.2d 612). In any event, we conclude that defendant's contention lacks merit. Although County Court did not mention during the plea colloquy that the sentence to be imposed for the instant crime might run consecutively to an undischarged sentence on a previous conviction, the court also did not inform defendant at that time that he would receive concurrent sentences, nor did the court give defendant " 'any reason to think that part or all of [the] sentence [imposed for the instant crime] would be effectively nullified, by running simultaneously with [the] sentence[ ] he had already received' " ( People v. Lagas, 76 A.D.3d 384, 387, 906 N.Y.S.2d 151, quoting People ex rel. Gill v. Greene, 12 N.Y.3d 1, 6, 875 N.Y.S.2d 826, 903 N.E.2d 1146, cert. denied --- U.S. ----, 130 S.Ct. 86, 175 L.Ed.2d 59; see People v. Silva, 220 A.D.2d 230, 231, 631 N.Y.S.2d 857, lv. denied 87 N.Y.2d 973, 977, 642 N.Y.S.2d 202, 207 664 N.E.2d 1265, 1270).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is...