Opinion
06-09-2017
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Devin ISIDORE, Defendant–Appellant.
Tully Rinckey, PLLC, Rochester (Peter J. Pullano of Counsel), for defendant-appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Stephen X. O'Brien of Counsel), for respondent.
Tully Rinckey, PLLC, Rochester (Peter J. Pullano of Counsel), for defendant-appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Stephen X. O'Brien of Counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.03[3] ). Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence because the evidence adduced by the People at the hearing conducted pursuant to People v. Outley, 80 N.Y.2d 702, 594 N.Y.S.2d 683, 610 N.E.2d 356 did not suffice to demonstrate defendant's violation of the plea conditions. We reject that contention. The court made a sufficient inquiry in order to ascertain "the existence of a legitimate basis" for the charges of postplea criminal conduct on the part of defendant (Outley, 80 N.Y.2d at 713, 594 N.Y.S.2d 683, 610 N.E.2d 356 ; see People v. Fumia, 104 A.D.3d 1281, 1281, 960 N.Y.S.2d 826, lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 1004, 971 N.Y.S.2d 255, 993 N.E.2d 1278 ; People v. Ayen, 55 A.D.3d 1305, 1306, 864 N.Y.S.2d 591 ). We have considered defendant's challenge to the severity of the enhanced sentence and conclude that it is without merit.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, DeJOSEPH, NEMOYER, and CURRAN, JJ., concur.