People v. MartinezPeople v. Martinez
The defendant‘s contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw the plea (see People v Canole, 123 AD3d 940, 940 [2014]). In any event, the record reflects that the plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]). The defendant‘s post-plea assertions regarding his innocence contradicted the admissions he made under oath at his plea allocution, and were insufficient to warrant vacatur of his plea or a hearing (see People v Dixon, 29 NY2d 55, 57 [1971]; People v Dazzo, 92 AD3d 796, 796 [2012]; People v Douglas, 83 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2011]).
Contrary to the defendant‘s contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in failing to, sua sponte, order a competency examination (see People v Tortorici, 92 NY2d 757, 765 [1999]; People v Velez, 64 AD3d 799, 800 [2009]; People v Simpson, 52 AD3d 846, 847 [2008]).
The defendant‘s remaining contentions are without merit.
Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Roman and LaSalle, JJ., concur.