Opinion
June 22, 1998
Appeal from the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the findings of the hearing court are supported by the record which demonstrated that probable cause existed for the defendant's arrest ( see, People v. Brenfield, 188 A.D.2d 477, 478, citing People v. Brown, 173 A.D.2d 629; People v. Graves, 163 A.D.2d 487). Accordingly, the court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress the recovered drugs.
The sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive ( see, People v. Velez, 222 A.D.2d 539, 541; see also, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 85-86). The mere fact that the sentence imposed after trial was greater than the sentence offered during plea negotiations does not indicate that the defendant was punished for asserting his right to proceed to trial ( see, People v. Lam, 226 A.D.2d 554; People v. Velez, 222 A.D.2d 539, supra; People v. Street, 220 A.D.2d 704).
Moreover, the sentencing court's failure to state whether the sentences were to run concurrently or consecutively does not render the sentences invalid ( see, Penal Law § 70.25). Where the court does not specify the manner in which a sentence imposed by it is to run, an indeterminate or determinate sentence shall run concurrently with all other terms ( see, Penal Law § 70.25 Penal [1] [a]).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05) or without merit.
Sullivan, J.P., Joy, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.