Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles McClinton, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2014-06-18
Citations: 118 A.D.3d 915
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles McClinton, Appellant.
Judges: Dickerson, J.E, Leventhal, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 118
Pages: 915–915

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles McClinton, Appellant.
[987 NYS2d 241]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Toomey, J.), rendered December 14, 2012, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
As the People correctly concede, the defendant's waiver of his right to appeal was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 265 [2011]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]).
However, the defendant's challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant did not move to withdraw his plea on this ground prior to sentencing (see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Clarke, 93 NY2d 904 [1999]; People v Lujan, 114 AD3d 963 [2014]; People v Ovalle, 112 AD3d 971 [2013]). Furthermore, contrary to the defendant's contention, the exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here, since the defendant's plea allocution did not cast significant doubt upon his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of the plea (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit.
Dickerson, J.E, Leventhal, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.