Disposition: Applications for Criminal Leave to appeal denied Decision Reported Below: 4th Dept: 192 A.D.3d 1506 (Cayuga)
Defendant contends in both appeals that County Court erred in imposing enhanced sentences because the court's Outley warning was not part of the plea agreement, the court failed to sufficiently warn him of the consequences of violating the subject conditions and, in any event, he did not violate the conditions as articulated by the court. Defendant, however, failed to preserve those contentions for our review inasmuch as he did not object to the enhanced sentences or move to withdraw his guilty pleas or to vacate the judgments of conviction (see People v Shelton, 192 A.D.3d 1506, 1507 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 960 [2021]; People v Coker, 133 A.D.3d 1218, 1218 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 995 [2016]). We decline to exercise our power to review defendant's contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).
Defendant contends in both appeals that County Court erred in imposing enhanced sentences because the court's Outley warning was not part of the plea agreement, the court failed to sufficiently warn him of the consequences of violating the subject conditions and, in any event, he did not violate the conditions as articulated by the court. Defendant, however, failed to preserve those contentions for our review inasmuch as he did not object to the enhanced sentences or move to withdraw his guilty pleas or to vacate the judgments of conviction (seePeople v. Shelton , 192 A.D.3d 1506, 1507, 140 N.Y.S.3d 808 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 960, 147 N.Y.S.3d 546, 170 N.E.3d 420 [2021] ; People v. Coker , 133 A.D.3d 1218, 1218, 20 N.Y.S.3d 270 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 995, 38 N.Y.S.3d 105, 59 N.E.3d 1217 [2016] ). We decline to exercise our power to review defendant's contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c] ).
Defendant contends in both appeals that County Court erred in imposing enhanced sentences because the court's Outley warning was not part of the plea agreement, the court failed to sufficiently warn him of the consequences of violating the subject conditions and, in any event, he did not violate the conditions as articulated by the court. Defendant, however, failed to preserve those contentions for our review inasmuch as he did not object to the enhanced sentences or move to withdraw his guilty pleas or to vacate the judgments of conviction (see People v Shelton, 192 A.D.3d 1506, 1507 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 960 [2021]; People v Coker, 133 A.D.3d 1218, 1218 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 995 [2016]). We decline to exercise our power to review defendant's contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).