Opinion
07-27-2017
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jason BERRY, Appellant.
Andrew Kossover, Public Defender, Kingston (Michael K. Gould of counsel), for appellant. D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.
Andrew Kossover, Public Defender, Kingston (Michael K. Gould of counsel), for appellant.
D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered March 27, 2015, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
In satisfaction of a five-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and waived his right to appeal. Pursuant to the plea agreement, County Court sentenced defendant, as a second felony drug offender, to a prison term of eight years with three years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's contention on appeal, that he was improperly sentenced as a predicate felony offender, survives his appeal waiver but was not preserved due to his failure to object at sentencing despite an opportunity to do so (see People
v. Woods, 147 A.D.3d 1156, 1157, 46 N.Y.S.3d 441 [2017], lv. denied ––– N.Y.3d ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, –––N.E.3d –––– [June 14, 2017] ; People v. Lowell, 126 A.D.3d 1235, 1235, 3 N.Y.S.3d 651 [2015], lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 1167, 15 N.Y.S.3d 299, 36 N.E.3d 102 [2015] ). Defendant was advised during the plea allocution that he was, potentially, a persistent felony offender, and thereafter provided with a copy of the predicate felony offender information. At sentencing, defense counsel affirmed that defendant did not wish to controvert the allegations in the information and did not have any constitutional or other challenge to the conviction, and defendant then admitted the conviction. Given these circumstances, we are satisfied that there was substantial compliance with the applicable requirements and that corrective action in the interest of justice is not warranted (see CPL 400.21 ; People v. Woods, 147 A.D.3d at 1157, 46 N.Y.S.3d 441 ; People v. Melton, 136 A.D.3d 1069, 1070, 24 N.Y.S.3d 440 [2016], lv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 1002, 38 N.Y.S.3d 112, 59 N.E.3d 1224 [2016] ; People v. Jones, 47 A.D.3d 1121, 1122, 850 N.Y.S.2d 280 [2008], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 865, 860 N.Y.S.2d 491, 890 N.E.2d 254 [2008] ).
Where the appellate claim is that the sentence is unauthorized and, therefore, illegal, as readily discernible from the face of the record, preservation is not required (see
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
McCARTHY, J.P., GARRY, EGAN JR., CLARK and MULVEY, JJ., concur.
People v. Samms, 95 N.Y.2d 52, 55–58, 710 N.Y.S.2d 310, 731 N.E.2d 1118 [2000] ; People v. Martinez, 130 A.D.3d 1087, 1088, 12 N.Y.S.3d 380 [2015], lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 1010, 20 N.Y.S.3d 550, 42 N.E.3d 220 [2015] ). Here, however, defendant's claim is to the procedures employed and not whether he qualifies as a predicate offender.