Opinion
2012-12-26
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Randolph CHASE, appellant.
Mark Diamond, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Sarah S. Rabinowitz and Courtney Weinberger of counsel), for respondent.
Mark Diamond, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Sarah S. Rabinowitz and Courtney Weinberger of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kase, J.), rendered September 20, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), burglary in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree, and conspiracy in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
*892By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his challenge to the indictment as containing multiplicitous counts ( see People v. Nichols, 32 A.D.3d 1316, 1317, 821 N.Y.S.2d 534;People v. Nelson, 266 A.D.2d 730, 731, 698 N.Y.S.2d 797), as well as his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve his challenge to the indictment as containing multiplicitous counts, since such a claim does not directly involve the plea bargaining process ( see People v. Rodriguez–Ovalles, 74 A.D.3d 1368, 1368–1369, 903 N.Y.S.2d 258;People v. Perazzo, 65 A.D.3d 1058, 1059, 886 N.Y.S.2d 43).
The defendant's challenge to his adjudication as a second violent felony offender is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Washington, 89 A.D.3d 1140, 1142, 931 N.Y.S.2d 787;People v. Califano, 84 A.D.3d 1504, 1506, 923 N.Y.S.2d 299;People v. Hargroves, 27 A.D.3d 765, 815 N.Y.S.2d 605). In any event, although the Supreme Court did not specifically ask the defendant if he wished to controvert the allegations in the second violent felony offender statement, inasmuch as the defendant admitted the allegations in the statement and has not alleged any grounds to controvert it, this was a harmless oversight ( see People v. McAllister, 47 A.D.3d 731, 731–732, 850 N.Y.S.2d 495;People v. Flores, 40 A.D.3d 876, 878, 836 N.Y.S.2d 273).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.