Opinion
2013-06-14
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ian GOREE, Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M. William Boller, A.J.), rendered October 14, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree and driving without a safety belt. Thomas J. Eoannou, Buffalo (Jeremy D. Schwartz of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. *715Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Nicholas T. Texido of Counsel), for Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M. William Boller, A.J.), rendered October 14, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree and driving without a safety belt.
Thomas J. Eoannou, Buffalo (Jeremy D. Schwartz of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. *715Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Nicholas T. Texido of Counsel), for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.06[5] ), defendant contends that Supreme 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. We conclude that defendant's contention is not preserved for our review inasmuch as he failed to request such a hearing and did not move to withdraw his plea on that ground ( see People v. Scott, 101 A.D.3d 1773, 1773, 957 N.Y.S.2d 554;People v. Anderson, 99 A.D.3d 1239, 1239, 951 N.Y.S.2d 448,lv. denied20 N.Y.3d 1059, 962 N.Y.S.2d 610, 985 N.E.2d 920), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( seeCPL 470.15[6][a]; Scott, 101 A.D.3d at 1773, 957 N.Y.S.2d 554;People v. Darcy, 34 A.D.3d 230, 231, 823 N.Y.S.2d 77,lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 879, 832 N.Y.S.2d 491, 864 N.E.2d 621). We further conclude that the enhanced sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.