Opinion
1174 KA 19-01867
12-23-2020
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sahr TENGBEH, Defendant-Appellant.
ANDREW D. CORREIA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (BRIDGET L. FIELD OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
ANDREW D. CORREIA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (BRIDGET L. FIELD OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, CURRAN, WINSLOW, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree ( Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [3] [a] [ii] ). Assuming, arguendo, that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is invalid (see People v. Thomas , 34 N.Y.3d 545, 564-566, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 [2019], cert denied ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 2634, 206 L.Ed.2d 512 [2020] ) or does not encompass his contentions on appeal (see generally People v. Butler , 151 A.D.3d 1959, 1959-1960, 55 N.Y.S.3d 569 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 948, 67 N.Y.S.3d 131, 89 N.E.3d 521 [2017] ; People v. Lynn , 144 A.D.3d 1491, 1492-1493, 40 N.Y.S.3d 685 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1186, 52 N.Y.S.3d 712, 75 N.E.3d 104 [2017] ; People v. Rodas , 131 A.D.3d 1181, 1181-1182, 16 N.Y.S.3d 591 [2d Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 1111, 26 N.Y.S.3d 770, 47 N.E.3d 100 [2016] ), we conclude that defendant's contentions lack merit. Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for an adjournment. "[T]he granting of an adjournment for any purpose is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the trial court ..., and [t]he court's exercise of discretion in denying a request for an adjournment will not be overturned absent a showing of prejudice" ( People v. Atkins , 162 A.D.3d 1729, 1730, 79 N.Y.S.3d 815 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1002, 86 N.Y.S.3d 760, 111 N.E.3d 1116 [2018] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Micolo , 171 A.D.3d 1484, 1485, 99 N.Y.S.3d 538 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1096, 131 N.Y.S.3d 307, 155 N.E.3d 800 [2020] ). Defendant made no such showing here.
Defendant relies on the procedures set forth in CPL 410.70 for his contention that the court erred in determining that he violated the conditions of his interim probation, but we note that CPL 400.10, not CPL 410.70, applies to the revocation of defendant's interim probation prior to sentencing (see People v. Rollins , 50 A.D.3d 1535, 1536, 856 N.Y.S.2d 417 [4th Dept. 2008], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 939, 862 N.Y.S.2d 345, 892 N.E.2d 411 [2008] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the court did not err in determining that defendant violated the conditions of interim probation inasmuch as the "summary hearing conducted by the court was sufficient pursuant to CPL 400.10 (3) to enable the court to assure itself that the information upon which it was basing its determination ... was reliable and accurate" ( Lynn , 144 A.D.3d at 1493, 40 N.Y.S.3d 685 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Butler , 151 A.D.3d at 1960, 55 N.Y.S.3d 569 ).