People v. Wilson

Nov 27, 2013
Versions:111 A.D.3d 969
975 N.Y.S.2d 767

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant‘s plea of guilty was entered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17 [1983]).

The defendant received the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147 [1981]). Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant‘s challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 220.60 [3]; 470.05 [2]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; People v Claudio, 64 NY2d 858 [1985]; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636, 637 [1983]; People v Barrett, 105 AD3d 862, 863 [2013]). Moreover, the “rare case” exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant‘s allocution did not cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of his plea (People v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666; People v Stone, 91 AD3d 977, 977 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]). In any event, the facts admitted by the defendant during his plea allocution were sufficient to support his plea of guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (see People v Goldstein, 12 NY3d 295, 301 [2009]; People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780, 781 [2005]).

Contrary to the defendant‘s contention, the imposition of a $50 DNA databank fee at the time of sentencing was not illegal. The defendant was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, a “[d]esignated offen[se]” as defined by Executive Law § 995 (7), which triggered the imposition of a $50 DNA databank fee (see Penal Law § 60.35 [1] [a] [v]; People v Cooper, 88 AD3d 1009, 1010 [2011]). Accordingly, the County Court properly imposed the $50 DNA databank fee at the time of sentencing. Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.