Opinion
2014-05829 Ind. No. 33/10.
01-20-2016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Edward J. CORBETT, appellant.
Bruce A. Petito, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
Bruce A. Petito, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Greller, J.), rendered May 27, 2014, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third 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 made is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw the plea (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5; People v. Ronconi, 85 A.D.3d 1063, 925 N.Y.S.2d 644). In any event, the defendant is not entitled to vacate his plea on the basis that he did not understand the severity of the enhanced sentence to be imposed if he failed to successfully complete the judicial diversion program. The plea proceedings reveal that the defendant acknowledged and understood the maximum sentence that could be imposed, and that he would be subjected to an enhanced sentence, without the option of withdrawing his plea, if he failed to comply with the conditions of the plea or if he did not successfully complete the judicial diversion program (see People v. Duryea, 116 A.D.3d 709, 709–710, 983 N.Y.S.2d 99; People v. Chander, 113 A.D.3d 697, 698, 978 N.Y.S.2d 331; People v. Akhtar, 13 A.D.3d 383, 383–384, 786 N.Y.S.2d 549). Furthermore, since the defendant failed to successfully complete the judicial diversion program and was re-arrested in violation of his plea agreement, the County Court properly imposed the enhanced sentence (see People v. Hubbard, 105 A.D.3d 760, 961 N.Y.S.2d 795; People v. Akhtar, 13 A.D.3d at 384, 786 N.Y.S.2d 549; People v. White, 3 A.D.3d 543, 544, 770 N.Y.S.2d 630).
The enhanced sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
BALKIN, J.P., CHAMBERS, COHEN and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.