PEOPLE v. MOORE

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum:

Defendant was convicted upon his pleas of guilty of driving while intoxicated as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192; § 1193 [1] [c] [ii]) and driving while ability impaired (§ 1192 [1]) and was sentenced to concurrent terms of incarceration, the longest of which is an indeterminate term of 1 1/3 to 4 years. We reject defendant's contention that the State Trooper lacked reasonable suspicion to justify the stop of defendant's vehicle. The suppression court's determination of credibility is entitled to great weight ( see People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761), and that determination should not be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous ( see People v. Holmes, 284 A.D.2d 984, 984, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 919; People v. Stokes, 212 A.D.2d 986, 987, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 741). The State Trooper's observation of defendant's erratic driving and violation of traffic laws provided a sufficient basis for the stop ( see People v. Ellis, 62 N.Y.2d 393, 396; People v. Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413, 420; People v. Schroeder, 229 A.D.2d 917; People v. Wohlers, 138 A.D.2d 957).

Defendant's challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocutions is unpreserved for our review and in any event lacks merit ( see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665-667). "[T]here is no requirement that a defendant personally recite the facts underlying his or her crime" ( People v. Williams 291 A.D.2d 891, 893, quoting People v. Kinch, 237 A.D.2d 830, 831, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 860 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Every, 272 A.D.2d 947, 947-948, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 865).

Defendant's challenge to the severity of the bargained-for sentence is without merit ( see People v. Blount, 288 A.D.2d 837, 838; People v. Wright, 288 A.D.2d 899, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 689).