Majority
Defendant did not preserve his challenge to his plea allocution, and we find that this claim does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168 , 182 [2013]; see also People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725 [1995]). We decline to review the claim in the interest of justice. As an alternate holding, we find that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and that the plea allocution, when viewed as a whole and in the context of the factual allegations against defendant, did not cast doubt on defendant’s guilt of burglary.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
Concur— Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.
Cases cited
- People v. Peque 22 NY3d 168 at 182 p. 443
- People v. Toxey 86 NY2d 725 p. 443