Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his pleas of guilty were not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent because he is legally blind and was denied devices to accommodate his visual impairment is unpreserved for appellate review as the defendant failed to move to vacate his pleas prior to the imposition of the sentences or otherwise raise the issue before the Supreme Court (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Thomas,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.