Opinion
2015-03-20
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Peter M. LAURENDI, Defendant–Appellant.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Timothy P. Murphy of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Ashley R. Small of Counsel), for Respondent.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Timothy P. Murphy of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Ashley R. Small of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, SCONIERS, and WHALEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of driving while intoxicated as a class E felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192[3]; 1193[1][c][i] ), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in enhancing his sentence without affording him the opportunity to withdraw his plea ( see generally People v. Outley, 80 N.Y.2d 702, 712–713, 594 N.Y.S.2d 683, 610 N.E.2d 356, cert. denied519 U.S. 964, 117 S.Ct. 386, 136 L.Ed.2d 303). Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review, however, because “he 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. Wachtel, 117 A.D.3d 1203, 1203, 984 N.Y.S.2d 699, lv. denied23 N.Y.3d 1044, 993 N.Y.S.2d 257, 17 N.E.3d 512). Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry into his violation of the conditions of the plea agreement before imposing an enhanced sentence ( see People v. Hassett, 119 A.D.3d 1443, 1444, 988 N.Y.S.2d 831, lv. denied24 N.Y.3d 961, 996 N.Y.S.2d 220, 20 N.E.3d 1000; People v. Anderson, 99 A.D.3d 1239, 1239, 951 N.Y.S.2d 448, lv. denied20 N.Y.3d 1059, 962 N.Y.S.2d 610, 985 N.E.2d 920). We decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( seeCPL 470.15[3][c] ).
To the extent that defendant's contention that he was denied effective assistanceof counsel at sentencing survives his guilty plea, we conclude that it lacks merit ( see People v. LaCroce, 83 A.D.3d 1388, 1388, 919 N.Y.S.2d 728, lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 807, 929 N.Y.S.2d 567, 953 N.E.2d 805). Defendant “receive[d] an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel” (People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265). The sentence, as imposed, is not unduly harsh or severe.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.