Opinion
2019–04819 Ind.No. 946/17
11-25-2020
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Shaquile N. HOPKINS, appellant.
Thomas R. Villecco, Jericho, NY, for appellant. Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Judith R. Sternberg and Sarah S. Rabinowitz of counsel), for respondent.
Thomas R. Villecco, Jericho, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Judith R. Sternberg and Sarah S. Rabinowitz of counsel), for respondent.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Felice J. Muraca, J.), rendered February 16, 2018, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
In October 2017, the defendant pleaded guilty to assault in the second degree. As part of the conditions of his plea, the defendant was required, inter alia, not to commit any new offenses prior to sentencing. The defendant further understood that if he failed to comply with this condition, the sentencing court could impose an enhanced sentence, and the defendant would not be permitted to take back his plea. At a subsequent court appearance on January 8, 2018, the defendant was again admonished not to get rearrested or to face additional charges prior to sentencing. The following day, the defendant was arrested in Queens. The defendant subsequently received an enhanced sentence after the Supreme Court determined that he had failed to satisfy a condition of his plea agreement.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court failed to make a sufficient inquiry to determine whether he violated a condition of his plea agreement is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Humbach, 153 A.D.3d 637, 638, 57 N.Y.S.3d 406 ; People v. Cousar, 128 A.D.3d 716, 716, 9 N.Y.S.3d 96 ; People v. Arrington, 94 A.D.3d 903, 903, 941 N.Y.S.2d 877 ), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 ; People v. Humbach, 153 A.D.3d at 638, 57 N.Y.S.3d 406 ).
The defendant's challenge to the restitution component of his sentence is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Horne, 97 N.Y.2d 404, 414 n 3, 740 N.Y.S.2d 675, 767 N.E.2d 132 ; People v. Nelson, 77 A.D.3d 973, 909 N.Y.S.2d 642 ; People v. Rojas, 74 A.D.3d 1369, 903 N.Y.S.2d 258 ), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 ).
CHAMBERS, J.P., ROMAN, HINDS–RADIX and DUFFY, JJ., concur.