People v. FaulknorPeople v. Faulknor
Defendant‘s unpreserved challenges to the validity of his plea do not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. The record fails to support defendant‘s assertion that the sentencing court‘s remarks violated the plea agreement (see e.g. People v Jeffrey, 254 AD2d 230 [1st Dept 1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 1033 [1998]). Unlike the situation in People v Mox (20 NY3d 936 [2012]), there was nothing in the actual plea allocution that triggered a duty to inquire into an potential insanity defense, and the fact that there had been proceedings under
Regardless of whether defendant made a valid appeal waiver, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.