Opinion
KA 02-00152
June 14, 2002.
Appeal from a judgment of Ontario County Court (Harvey, J.), entered December 13, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, burglary in the second degree.
DAVID R. MORABITO, EAST ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (BRIAN D. DENNIS OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: PINE, J.P., WISNER, KEHOE, BURNS, AND LAWTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25), grand larceny in the third degree (§ 155.35) and grand larceny in the fourth degree (§ 155.30 [7]). He contends that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered because County Court failed to advise him either at the time of the plea or at sentencing that the bargained-for sentence would be followed by a mandatory period of postrelease supervision ( see § 70.45 [2]). That contention is unpreserved for our review ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665-666).
Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contentions that the plea colloquy was insufficient because he was not informed of fundamental rights that he was waiving ( see People v. Davenport, 273 A.D.2d 926) and that his plea allocution failed to establish the essential elements of the offenses to which he was pleading guilty ( see People v. Alicea, 264 A.D.2d 900, 900-901, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 876; see generally People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665). In any event, we conclude that those contentions lack merit.