PEOPLE v. CRUZ

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39), defendant contends that his plea was not voluntarily entered inasmuch as he entered the plea because of the length of his pre-plea incarceration and his desire to obtain medical treatment in a state prison. "[D]efendant failed to preserve that challenge for our review by moving to withdraw his plea or [raising that ground in his motion to] vacate the judgment of conviction" ( People v Cloyd, 78 AD3d 1669, 1670). We reject defendant's contention that this is one of those rare cases in which the exception to the preservation requirement applies ( see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666). The record establishes that County Court, "when confronted with statements casting significant doubt upon [the voluntariness of the plea], properly conducted further inquiry to ensure that [the] plea was . . . voluntary" ( id. at 667-668; see People v High, 46 AD3d 1435, lv denied 10 NY3d 812). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.