John A. Cirando, Syracuse, for appellant.

Alexander Lesyk, Special Prosecutor, Norwood, for respondent.

Aarons, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.), rendered July 17, 2013, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

In 2008, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted burglary in the third degree and was sentenced to five years of probation and ordered to pay restitution. In 2010, defendant's term of probation was extended by 299 days after he admitted to violating the terms of his probation. In July 2013, defendant was charged with violating the terms of his probation by, among other things, failing to report on multiple occasions to his probation officer as directed, failing to successfully complete substance abuse treatment, failing to pay restitution and testing positive for marihuana and oxycodone. Pursuant to an agreed-upon disposition, defendant admitted to all but one of these charges. In exchange, County Court revoked his probation and imposed the promised sentence of 365 days in jail. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea is unpreserved for review inasmuch as the record fails to indicate that he moved to withdraw his plea of guilty to the probation violations (see People v Moulton, 134 AD3d 1251, 1252 [2015]; People v McGregor, 119 AD3d 1235, 1236 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 991 [2015]). Moreover, the exception to the preservation requirement is not applicable where, as here, defendant's responses during his plea allocution were lucid, rational, appropriate and not inconsistent with his guilt or cast any doubt on the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Johnson, 125 AD3d 1052, 1052-1053 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1073 [2015]; People v McCann, 289 AD2d 703, 703-704 [2001]).

Defendant also argues that his 365-day jail sentence imposed on July 17, 2013 is harsh [*2]and excessive. Given that defendant has completed that jail sentence during the pendency of this appeal, any claims related to sentencing are moot (see People v Cancer, 132 AD3d 1019, 1020 [2015]; People v Pozzi, 117 AD3d 1325, 1325 [2014]).

Lahtinen, J.P., Rose, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.