PEOPLE v. BELL

After a thorough inquiry, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see, People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520). The record reveals that the plea was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Defendant's contentions in support of his motion to withdraw the plea were clearly refuted by the plea allocution record.

Since defendant failed to challenge the propriety of his second felony offender adjudication on the ground now asserted, his claim is unpreserved for appellate review (People v. Smith, 73 N.Y.2d 961). "A sufficiently specific motion might [have] provid[ed] the opportunity for cure" (People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 20) by alerting the People to the necessity of obtaining the accusatory instrument upon which defendant was convicted in Connecticut, for the purpose of equivalency analysis pursuant to People v. Muniz ( 74 N.Y.2d 464), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice.