Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County (Stephen M. Behar, J., at plea; Joseph A. Santorelli, J., at sentence), rendered September 15, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of driving while ability impaired. The appeal from the judgment brings up for review an order of the same court (Joseph A. Santorelli, J.) dated September 15, 2011, which denied defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant was initially charged, in a misdemeanor information, with driving while intoxicated per se (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2]). Pursuant to plea negotiations, the charge was reduced to driving while ability impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [1]). Defendant, represented by counsel, then pleaded guilty to the reduced charge. During his plea allocution, defendant expressly stated that he had not been coerced into pleading guilty, and he unequivocally and voluntarily acknowledged his guilt.

Prior to sentencing, defendant moved to vacate his guilty plea on the ground that he did not want to plead guilty and that he wanted to go to trial on this matter. In addition, defendant alleged in his motion papers that he did not fully understand his rights and options. The District Court denied the motion. [*2]

On appeal, defendant contends that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered as he had been suffering from an emotional stress disorder at the time. Since this contention is raised for the first time on appeal, it is not preserved for our review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). We note that the District Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying defendant's motion without an evidentiary hearing since defendant's allegation that he never intended to plead guilty to the charge of driving while ability impaired was unsupported by the record (see People v Haffiz, 19 NY3d 883, 884 [2012]; People v Bruno, 73 AD3d 941 [2010]). Moreover, there is no indication that, at the time defendant pleaded guilty, he harbored any doubt or reluctance to enter the plea (see People v Tenace, 256 AD2d 928 [1998]). We further note that the colloquy between defendant and the District Court, at the time of the plea, did not reveal a reasonable basis to believe that defendant lacked the capacity to understand the proceeding against him or to assist in his own defense.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., LaSalle and Marano, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 08, 2013