Opinion
2019–01917 Ind. No. 1123/12
05-05-2021
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Donald J. GUICHARD, appellant.
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Felice B. Milani of counsel), for appellant. Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Thomas C. Costello and Glenn Green of counsel), for respondent.
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Felice B. Milani of counsel), for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Thomas C. Costello and Glenn Green of counsel), for respondent.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Stephen Braslow, J.), rendered August 1, 2018, convicting him of attempted possession of marijuana in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contentions that the County Court erred in imposing a sentence greater than that which had been promised without affording him the opportunity to withdraw his plea of guilty or making an adequate inquiry into the validity of his postplea arrest are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Hopkins, 188 A.D.3d 1253, 1253, 132 N.Y.S.3d 809 ; People v. Morales, 121 A.D.3d 919, 919, 993 N.Y.S.2d 515 ). In any event, the court acted properly within its discretion in imposing an enhanced sentence as a result of the defendant's undisputed violation of the clear and unambiguous "no re-arrest" condition of the plea (see People v. Morales, 121 A.D.3d at 919, 993 N.Y.S.2d 515 ). The court was under no obligation to afford the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea of guilty (see People v. Szyjko, 17 A.D.3d 609, 610, 795 N.Y.S.2d 57 ). In addition, the court's inquiry into the validity of the defendant's postplea arrest was adequate (see generally People v. Outley, 80 N.Y.2d 702, 713, 594 N.Y.S.2d 683, 610 N.E.2d 356 ).
The defendant's further contention of an unreasonable delay in sentencing pursuant to CPL 380.30(1) is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Polite, 164 A.D.3d 1372, 1375, 83 N.Y.S.3d 607 ), and, in any event, without merit (see People v. Brooks, 118 A.D.3d 1123, 1124, 987 N.Y.S.2d 249 ).
The enhanced sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
CHAMBERS, J.P., AUSTIN, LASALLE and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.