People v. Granton

Opinion

People v Granton

2026 NY Slip Op 04433

July 15, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Lamont McCall Granton, appellant.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on July 15, 2026

2025-07328, (Ind. No. 70272/25)

Cheryl E. Chambers, J.P.

Barry E. Warhit

Laurence L. Love

Susan Quirk, JJ.

Jillian S. Harrington, Staten Island, NY, for appellant.

Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Tammy J. Smiley and Liora M. Ben-Sorek of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Robert A. Schwartz, J.), rendered April 30, 2025, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, attempted burglary in the third degree, criminal trespass in the third degree, possession of burglar's tools, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review because he did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise the issue before the County Court (see People v Ferrara, 243 AD3d 921, 921; People v Ponce, 232 AD3d 741, 741). Moreover, the exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant's plea allocution did not cast significant doubt upon his guilt, negate an essential element of the crimes, or call into question the voluntariness of the plea (see People v Ponce, 232 AD3d at 741; People v Bermudez-Cedillos, 228 AD3d 681, 682).

In any event, the record establishes that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v Pil-Yong Yoo, 208 AD3d 1257, 1258). The defendant was adequately advised of the constitutional rights he was forfeiting by pleading guilty (see Boykin v Alabama, 395 US 238, 243), and the record affirmatively demonstrates the defendant's understanding and waiver of these rights (see People v Mujica, 236 AD3d 677, 677; People v Perrella, 188 AD3d 1263, 1264). Additionally, contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court was not required to advise him of the collateral consequences resulting from his guilty plea (see People v Mujica, 236 AD3d at 677-678; People v Taylor, 60 AD3d 708, 709).

CHAMBERS, J.P., WARHIT, LOVE and QUIRK, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court