Opinion
1495 KA 16–00191
12-22-2017
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Andrew C. LAURY, Defendant–Appellant.
WILLIAMS HEINL MOODY BUSCHMAN, P.C., AUBURN (MARIO J. GUTIERREZ OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. JON E. BUDELMANN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (CHRISTOPHER T. VALDINA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
WILLIAMS HEINL MOODY BUSCHMAN, P.C., AUBURN (MARIO J. GUTIERREZ OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
JON E. BUDELMANN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (CHRISTOPHER T. VALDINA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Memorandum:Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of two counts of rape in the third degree ( Penal Law § 130.25[2] ). Defendant, who was on parole at the time of the disposition of this case, contends that the plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because County Court failed to advise him that it would result in a parole violation. Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as his motion to withdraw the plea did not include that ground (see People v. Gibson, 140 A.D.3d 1786, 1787, 32 N.Y.S.3d 413 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1072, 47 N.Y.S.3d 231, 69 N.E.3d 1027 [2016] ). In any event, we conclude that defendant's contention is without merit. "[A] trial court must advise a defendant of the direct consequences of [a] plea, but [it] has no obligation to explain to defendants who plead guilty the possibility that collateral consequences may attach to their criminal convictions" ( People v. Monk, 21 N.Y.3d 27, 32, 966 N.Y.S.2d 739, 989 N.E.2d 1 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Where, as here, a defendant is sentenced pursuant to Penal Law § 70.80(5), the sentence must run consecutively to a previously imposed undischarged sentence (see§ 70.25[2–a] ). That is a collateral consequence of the conviction, and the court's failure "to address the impact of Penal Law § 70.25(2–a) during the plea colloquy does not require vacatur of the plea" ( People v. Belliard, 20 N.Y.3d 381, 389, 961 N.Y.S.2d 820, 985 N.E.2d 415 [2013] ).
Defendant was sentenced to the minimum sentence permissible under the law, and we therefore reject his contention that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe (see People v. Barlow, 8 A.D.3d 1027, 1028, 778 N.Y.S.2d 375 [4th Dept. 2004], lv denied 3 N.Y.3d 657, 782 N.Y.S.2d 699, 816 N.E.2d 572 [2004] ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.