Opinion
106463
06-25-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Juan MEDINA, Appellant.
Brian M. Callahan, Schenectady, for appellant, and appellant pro se. Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H. Willis of counsel), for respondent.
Brian M. Callahan, Schenectady, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H. Willis of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., GARRY, EGAN JR. and LYNCH, JJ.
Opinion
EGAN JR., J.Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Drago, J.), rendered November 14, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
In full satisfaction of a six-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and waived his right to appeal. Defendant thereafter was sentenced— consistent with the terms of the plea agreement—to a prison term of 5 ½ years followed by 3 ½ years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals, primarily contending that his plea was involuntary because he was not adequately apprised of the postrelease supervision (hereinafter PRS) component of his sentence.
We affirm. Although defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea survives his uncontested waiver of the right to appeal, it is unpreserved for our review in the absence of an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v. White, 119 A.D.3d 1286, 1287, 990 N.Y.S.2d 726 [2014], lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 1222, 4 N.Y.S.3d 610, 28 N.E.3d 46 [2015] ). Contrary to defendant's assertion, County Court twice advised defendant—prior to accepting his plea—of the range of PRS to which he would be subject, reiterated this range again prior to imposing sentence and thereafter expressly referenced the PRS component of defendant's sentence at the time thereof, thereby triggering the preservation requirement (see People v. Crowder, 24 N.Y.3d 1134, 1136–1137, 3 N.Y.S.3d 309, 26 N.E.3d 1164 [2015] ; People v. Murray, 15 N.Y.3d 725, 726–727, 906 N.Y.S.2d 521, 932 N.E.2d 877 [2010] ; People v. White, 119 A.D.3d at 1287, 990 N.Y.S.2d 726 ). Under these circumstances, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement set forth in People v. Louree, 8 N.Y.3d 541, 545–546, 838 N.Y.S.2d 18, 869 N.E.2d 18 (2007) is inapplicable (see People v. Davis, 114 A.D.3d 1166, 1166–1167, 979 N.Y.S.2d 903 [2014], lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 1035, 993 N.Y.S.2d 249, 17 N.E.3d 504 [2014] ; compare People v. Bolivar, 118 A.D.3d 91, 93–94, 986 N.Y.S.2d 631 [2014] ). Finally, to the extent that defendant contends that County Court's comments reflect that it relied upon inaccurate and/or unreliable information in imposing sentence, inasmuch as defendant's argument on this point “amounts to a challenge to the procedures utilized in determining his sentence and does not implicate the legality of the sentence or the power of the court to impose it, defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal precludes our review of such claim” (People v. Smith, 119 A.D.3d 1088, 1089, 988 N.Y.S.2d 724 [2014], lvs. denied 24 N.Y.3d 1084, 1089, 1 N.Y.S.3d 11, 16, 25 N.E.3d 348, 353 [2014] ).
PETERS, P.J., GARRY and LYNCH, JJ., concur.