Opinion
1002 KA 19–00082
11-08-2019
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael D. COUTURIER, Defendant–Appellant.
CHARLES A. MARANGOLA, MORAVIA, FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. JON E. BUDELMANN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (CHRISTOPHER T. VALDINA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
CHARLES A. MARANGOLA, MORAVIA, FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
JON E. BUDELMANN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (CHRISTOPHER T. VALDINA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of arson in the fourth degree ( Penal Law § 150.05[1] ), defendant contends that County Court erred in failing to warn defendant during the plea proceeding that it could impose an enhanced sentence if he was arrested on new charges while awaiting sentencing. Defendant failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground and thus has failed to preserve his contention for our review (see People v. Fortner, 23 A.D.3d 1058, 1058, 803 N.Y.S.2d 470 [4th Dept. 2005] ; People v. Sundown, 305 A.D.2d 1075, 1076, 758 N.Y.S.2d 736 [4th Dept. 2003] ), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[3][c] ). We further conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant defendant youthful offender status, and we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to adjudicate defendant a youthful offender (see People v. Quinones, 160 A.D.3d 1441, 1441, 72 N.Y.S.3d 869 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1152, 83 N.Y.S.3d 434, 108 N.E.3d 508 [2018] ; People v. Parmelee, 184 A.D.2d 534, 535, 584 N.Y.S.2d 318 [2d Dept. 1992] ). Contrary to defendant's remaining contention, the enhanced sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.