Opinion
October 27, 1994
Appeal from the County Court of Tioga County (Sgueglia, J.).
Contrary to the misleading factual analysis of defendant's brief, a review of the plea minutes establishes that defendant entered a counseled plea of guilty to and acknowledged his commission of acts supporting a finding of guilt as to each and every count of the superior court information. Further, defendant did not move to withdraw his plea of guilty or to vacate the judgment of conviction entered thereon, thereby failing to preserve his challenge to the plea allocution for appellate review in any event (see, People v. Hicks, 201 A.D.2d 831).
We are also unpersuaded by the argument that County Court incorrectly imposed a single sentence upon defendant's pleas to the 18 separate counts of the superior court information and thereafter impermissibly enhanced the sentence by making provision for restitution. Notably, a court retains authority to correct sentencing errors or to modify a sentence other than a sentence of imprisonment and may modify even a legal sentence of imprisonment prior to defendant's receipt at the institution designated in the commitment (see, CPL 430.10; Penal Law § 70.30; People v. Minaya, 54 N.Y.2d 360, 364-365, cert denied 455 U.S. 1024; Preiser, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 11A, CPL 430.10, at 400-401). Here, County Court properly sentenced defendant on each separate count upon which he was convicted only seven days following pronouncement of the original sentence and prior to defendant's delivery to the facility designated in the commitment (see, People v. Mohammed, 126 A.D.2d 673, lv. denied 69 N.Y.2d 953). Further, because defendant's victims sought restitution, as detailed in the victim impact statements that were before County Court at the time it imposed sentence, in the absence of a finding that the interests of justice dictated otherwise, County Court was required to order restitution as a part of the sentence (see, Penal Law § 60.27).
Defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved or found to lack merit.
Cardona, P.J., Mikoll, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Order that the judgment is affirmed.