Majority
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered September 6, 2012, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made because he was confused and did not understand what he was doing is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his plea of guilty (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 , 665 [1988]; People v Ross, 52 AD3d 624 [2008]; People v Rodriguez, 51 AD3d 1043 , 1044 [2008]; People v Scott, 39 AD3d 570 [2007]). Moreover, contrary to the defendant’s contention, this is not that “rare case” where the plea colloquy itself clearly casts significant doubt on the defendant’s guilt or otherwise
Furthermore, the defendant’s contention that his plea of guilty was not voluntarily entered because he was not advised at the plea of the mandatory surcharges is without merit (see People v Hoti, 12 NY3d 742 , 743 [2009]; People v Guerrero, 12 NY3d 45 , 48-49 [2009]; People v Cooks, 107 AD3d 734 , 735 [2013]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Chambers and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Lopez 71 NY2d 662 at 665 p. 754
- People v. Scott 39 AD3d 570 p. 754
- People v. Jerome 110 AD3d 739 at 740 p. 755
- People v. Douglas 83 AD3d 1092 at 1093 p. 755
- People v. Hoti 12 NY3d 742 at 743 p. 755
- People v. Guerrero 12 NY3d 45 at 48-49 p. 755
- People v. Suitte 90 AD2d 80 p. 755