Opinion
2016–12886 Ind.No. 15–0284
02-20-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Clifford PERKINS, Appellant.
Anthony M. Giordano, Ossining, NY, for appellant. Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Christine DiSalvo and Steven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.
Anthony M. Giordano, Ossining, NY, for appellant.
Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Christine DiSalvo and Steven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SHERI S. ROMAN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERAppeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Robert A. Neary, J.), rendered October 14, 2016, convicting him of criminally negligent homicide, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant pleaded guilty in exchange for a promised sentence of six months of "shock" incarceration followed by five years of probation. At the plea proceeding, the defendant was advised that if he failed to appear for sentencing or was rearrested, he could receive an enhanced sentence. The defendant failed to appear on the scheduled sentencing date, and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. Following the defendant's violation of the plea agreement, the sentencing court imposed an enhanced sentence.
The defendant's contention that the County Court erred in imposing a sentence greater than that which had been promised is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant neither objected to the sentence on that ground nor moved to vacate his plea (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Martin, 151 A.D.3d 753, 53 N.Y.S.3d 557 ; People v. Carrasquillo, 133 A.D.3d 774, 775, 19 N.Y.S.3d 333 ; People v. Browning, 44 A.D.3d 1067, 844 N.Y.S.2d 405 ). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit, as the defendant was advised of the maximum sentence that could be imposed upon his failure to comply with the conditions of his plea agreement (see People v. Grant, 122 A.D.3d 767, 996 N.Y.S.2d 147 ; People v. Browning, 44 A.D.3d at 1067, 844 N.Y.S.2d 405 ). Moreover, the defendant's waiver of the right to appeal, the validity of which the defendant does not challenge, precludes appellate review of his contention that the enhanced sentence was excessive (see People v. Sanchez, 122 A.D.3d 778, 779, 995 N.Y.S.2d 609 ).
BALKIN, J.P., CHAMBERS, ROMAN and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.