Opinion
2016–10811 Ind. No. 1363–15
06-20-2018
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Darguin J. MARTINEZDIAZ, Appellant.
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Alfred J. Cicale of counsel), for appellant. Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Timothy P. Finnerty of counsel), for respondent.
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Alfred J. Cicale of counsel), for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Timothy P. Finnerty of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SANDRA L. SGROI, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (John J. Toomey, J.), rendered September 15, 2016, convicting him of rape in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the supplemental sex offender victim fee imposed upon him is barred by his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Char, 153 A.D.3d 724, 57 N.Y.S.3d 896).
To the extent that the defendant contends that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered because he was not advised at the time he entered his plea that he would be assessed a supplemental sex offender victim fee, that contention survives the defendant's waiver of his right to appeal (see People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 10, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022 ). Nevertheless, the contention is without merit, since the plea court was not required to inform the defendant about the supplemental fee, which was not a component of his sentence (see People v. Hoti, 12 N.Y.3d 742, 743, 878 N.Y.S.2d 645, 906 N.E.2d 373 ; People v. Guerrero, 12 N.Y.3d 45, 876 N.Y.S.2d 687, 904 N.E.2d 823 ; People v. Bautista, 138 A.D.3d 754, 27 N.Y.S.3d 893 ; People v. Cooks, 107 A.D.3d 734, 966 N.Y.S.2d 211 ; cf. People v. Gravino, 14 N.Y.3d 546, 556–557, 902 N.Y.S.2d 851, 928 N.E.2d 1048 ).
BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.