People v. EllisPeople v. Ellis
We begin by noting that defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Lewis, 39 AD3d 1025, 1025-1026 [2007]; People v Threatt, 16 AD3d 706, 707 [2005]), thus rendering defendant‘s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea unpreserved for our review. In any event, we are satisfied that defendant‘s plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made. A review of the plea colloquy reveals that County Court‘s factual recitation and defendant‘s affirmative and unequivocal responses provided a sufficient factual basis for the acceptance of defendant‘s plea of guilty by County Court (see People v Threatt, 16 AD3d at 707; People v Mahar, 12 AD3d 715, 716 [2004]). Furthermore, the fact that County Court did not inform defendant at the time of his plea that he would be subject to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.