Opinion
2014-09-26
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Steven T. CARLISLE, Defendant–Appellant.
Davison Law Office PLLC, Canandaigua (Mary P. Davison of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Steven T. Carlisle, Defendant–Appellant pro se.
Davison Law Office PLLC, Canandaigua (Mary P. Davison of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Steven T. Carlisle, Defendant–Appellant pro se.
Cindy F. Intschert, District Attorney, Watertown (Patricia L. Dziuba of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, WHALEN AND DeJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking the sentence of probation previously imposed upon his conviction of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65[3] ) and sentencing him to a definite term of imprisonment. Defendant contends that his admission to the violation of probation was not voluntary, but “[b]y failing to move to withdraw his admission to the violation of probation or to vacate the judgment revoking the sentence of probation on that ground,” defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review (People v. Rodriguez, 74 A.D.3d 1858, 1858, 902 N.Y.S.2d 488, lv. denied15 N.Y.3d 809, 908 N.Y.S.2d 169, 934 N.E.2d 903; see People v. Torres, 294 A.D.2d 865, 865, 740 N.Y.S.2d 914, lv. denied99 N.Y.2d 540, 752 N.Y.S.2d 601, 782 N.E.2d 579; see generally People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665–666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5). This case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine ( see Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5), and we decline to exercise our power to review defendant's contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( seeCPL 470.15[3][c] ). Inasmuch as the contentions of defendant in his pro se supplemental brief relate solely to the validity of his plea of guilty to the underlying crime of sexual abuse in the first degree and the original sentence of probation, those contentions are not properly before us ( see People v. Prokopienko, 72 A.D.3d 1528, 1529, 905 N.Y.S.2d 725; People v. Ralston, 303 A.D.2d 1010, 1011, 756 N.Y.S.2d 808; see generally People v. Smith, 21 A.D.3d 1360, 1360, 801 N.Y.S.2d 218, lv. denied5 N.Y.3d 885, 808 N.Y.S.2d 588, 842 N.E.2d 486; People v. Luddington, 5 A.D.3d 1042, 1042, 773 N.Y.S.2d 698, lv. denied3 N.Y.3d 643, 782 N.Y.S.2d 414, 816 N.E.2d 204).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.