Opinion
March 4, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pizzuto, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Defendant's claims regarding the sufficiency of the plea allocution are unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05; People v. Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636; People v. Mattocks, 100 A.D.2d 944). In any event, reversal is not warranted in the interest of justice because the record of the allocution establishes that defendant knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty ( see, People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9; People v Nixon, 21 N.Y.2d 338, cert denied sub nom. Robinson v. New York, 393 U.S. 1067).
We also find no merit to defendant's contention that the second violent felony offender statute (Penal Law § 70.04) is unconstitutional because it requires the imposition of mandatory incarceration without regard to mitigating factors ( People v Vasquez, 104 A.D.2d 1012; see also, People v. Cates, 104 A.D.2d 895; People v. Kepple, 98 A.D.2d 783; People v. Bryant, 47 A.D.2d 51). Moreover, the fact that a felony may serve as a valid predicate for a second violent felony offender adjudication, even though the predicate crime was not designated as a "violent felony offense" when committed, does not violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws in US Constitution, article 1, § 10 (1) ( People v. Morse, 62 N.Y.2d 205, 216-218).
Finally, we perceive no basis for concluding that the sentence imposed, which was the product of a negotiated plea, warrants modification in the interest of justice ( People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.