Opinion
05-08-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Delroy GILLESPIE, Defendant–Appellant.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Cara A. Waldman of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Stephen X. O'Brien of Counsel), for Respondent.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Cara A. Waldman of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Stephen X. O'Brien of Counsel), for Respondent.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of reckless endangerment in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.20 ), defendant contends that Supreme Court impermissibly enhanced his sentence by revoking his pistol permit without affording him an opportunity to withdraw his plea. That contention is not preserved for our review because defendant “ failed to object to the alleged enhanced sentence and did not move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground” (People v. Epps, 109 A.D.3d 1104, 1105, 971 N.Y.S.2d 708 ; see People v. Viele, 124 A.D.3d 1222, 1223, 997 N.Y.S.2d 577 ; People v. Predmore, 68 A.D.3d 1755, 1756, 890 N.Y.S.2d 867, lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 804, 899 N.Y.S.2d 138, 925 N.E.2d 942 ). In any event, we conclude that defendant's contention is without merit. An order revoking a pistol permit, like an order of protection, “is not a part of [a] defendant's sentence” (People v. Lilley, 81 A.D.3d 1448, 1448, 917 N.Y.S.2d 494, lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 860, 932 N.Y.S.2d 25, 956 N.E.2d 806 ; see People v. Nieves, 2 N.Y.3d 310, 316, 778 N.Y.S.2d 751, 811 N.E.2d 13 ), and thus the revocation of defendant's pistol permit did not entitle him to an opportunity to withdraw his plea.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, and VALENTINO, JJ., concur.