Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
A review of the record reveals that the defendant's plea was voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently entered (People v Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9). Furthermore, the sentencing court's denial of the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea was not an improvident exercise of discretion. The defendant's unsubstantiated and conclusory assertion that his attorney coerced him into pleading guilty is belied by the plea minutes. The defendant's bald claim of innocence, raised for the first time on appeal, also has no basis in the record (see, People v Thomas, 78 A.D.2d 940; cf., People v White, 137 A.D.2d 859). The defendant's factual recitation of the offense made during the plea allocution, and his detailed confession to the police demonstrate that defendant's plea was neither improvident nor without a factual basis (see, e.g., People v Stubbs, 110 A.D.2d 725). Moreover, defendant's allegation that he was intoxicated at the time of the offense does not constitute a defense to the crime of sodomy in the first degree based upon an act of deviate sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 11, since intent is not an element thereof (see, Penal Law § 130.50; People v Di Paola, 143 A.D.2d 487).
We find no merit to the defendant's contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (People v Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816). Mangano, J.P., Kunzeman, Rubin, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.