Opinion
2012-10-10
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Hasheem FOSTER, appellant.
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, N.Y., for appellant. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Laurie K. Gibbons and Jessica L. Cepriano of counsel), for respondent.
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, N.Y., for appellant. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Laurie K. Gibbons and Jessica L. Cepriano of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Grella, J.), rendered May 4, 2010, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree (three counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Kase, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
At the suppression hearing, the defendant did not raise the arguments he now raises on appeal as grounds for suppressing statements he made to the police at the police station. Accordingly, the defendant failed to preserve these arguments for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Martin, 50 N.Y.2d 1029, 431 N.Y.S.2d 689, 409 N.E.2d 1363;People v. Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011, 1013, 384 N.Y.S.2d 444, 348 N.E.2d 920). In any event, the defendant's arguments are without merit ( see People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35, 38, 396 N.Y.S.2d 625, 364 N.E.2d 1318; People v. Berrios, 28 N.Y.2d 361, 367, 321 N.Y.S.2d 884, 270 N.E.2d 709;People v. Gega, 74 A.D.3d 1229, 904 N.Y.S.2d 716;People v. James, 72 A.D.3d 844, 898 N.Y.S.2d 635;People v. McCants, 67 A.D.3d 821, 823, 888 N.Y.S.2d 200;People v. Alomar, 55 A.D.3d 617, 865 N.Y.S.2d 311;People v. Osorio, 49 A.D.3d 562, 855 N.Y.S.2d 163).
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was coerced is unpreserved for appellate review since he did not seek to vacate his plea or otherwise raise this issue before the Supreme Court ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Clarke, 93 N.Y.2d 904, 905, 690 N.Y.S.2d 501, 712 N.E.2d 668;People v. Perez, 51 A.D.3d 1043, 861 N.Y.S.2d 63). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit. The Supreme Court did not threaten to sentence the defendant to the maximum term upon a conviction after trial, but only informed him of his possible sentence exposure were he to proceed to trial. Such remarks are informative, not coercive ( see People v. Strong, 80 A.D.3d 717, 914 N.Y.S.2d 679;People v. Bravo, 72 A.D.3d 697, 698, 899 N.Y.S.2d 280).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).