MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree (Penal Law 165.50), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea. We reject that contention. The decision whether to allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea is within the sound discretion of the court ( see CPL 220.60; People v. Selikoff, 35 N.Y.2d 227, 241, cert denied 419 U.S. 1122). Contrary to the contention of defendant, the colloquy did not cast doubt on defendant's guilt or the voluntary nature of the plea ( see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666), and the unsupported allegations of defendant that he is innocent and that defense counsel pressured him to accept the plea bargain are insufficient to warrant vacatur of the plea ( see People v. Telfair, 299 A.D.2d 429, lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 620; People v. Patterson, 295 A.D.2d 966, lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 538). Because defendant failed to object to the enhanced sentence or move to withdraw his plea on that ground, his contention that the sentence was improperly enhanced is not preserved for our review ( see 470.05 [2]; People v. Michael S., 273 A.D.2d 804, 805). In any event, the court instructed defendant at the time of the plea that, if he failed to appear for sentencing or was arrested for another crime prior to sentencing, the court would not be bound by its original sentencing commitment, and thus defendant's contention lacks merit.