Opinion
2012-10-5
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lamar T. ANDERSON, Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered March 23, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree. Kathleen P. Reardon, Rochester, for Defendant–Appellant. Lawrence Friedman, District Attorney, Batavia (William G. Zickl of Counsel), for Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered March 23, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree.
Kathleen P. Reardon, Rochester, for Defendant–Appellant. Lawrence Friedman, District Attorney, Batavia (William G. Zickl of Counsel), for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [1] ). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry pursuant to People v. Outley (80 N.Y.2d 702, 594 N.Y.S.2d 683, 610 N.E.2d 356) into his violation of the conditions of the plea agreement before imposing an enhanced sentence ( see generally People v. Vaillant, 77 A.D.3d 1389, 1389–1390, 908 N.Y.S.2d 798;People v. Dietz, 66 A.D.3d 1400, 1400, 885 N.Y.S.2d 811,lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 906, 895 N.Y.S.2d 320, 922 N.E.2d 909). Further, inasmuch as defendant conceded that he had lost his sentence cap because of a violation of the conditions of his plea agreement, the court had no independent duty to conduct such an inquiry ( see People v. Harris, 197 A.D.2d 930, 930, 604 N.Y.S.2d 849,lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 850, 606 N.Y.S.2d 602, 627 N.E.2d 523). To the extent that defendant's further contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel survives his plea of guilty ( see People v. Hawkins, 94 A.D.3d 1439, 1440–1441, 942 N.Y.S.2d 300,lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 974, 950 N.Y.S.2d 356, 973 N.E.2d 766), we reject that contention. We conclude on the record before us that defendant received meaningful representation ( see generally People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265). Contrary to defendant's additional contention, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.