Opinion
2011-12-23
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Taheed M. MOFFETT, also known as Taheed Moffett, also known as T. Moffett, Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered May 11, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.Gary A. Horton, Public Defender, Batavia (Bridget L. Field of Counsel), for defendant-appellant. Lawrence Friedman, District Attorney, Batavia (David E. Gann of Counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered May 11, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.Gary A. Horton, Public Defender, Batavia (Bridget L. Field of Counsel), for defendant-appellant. Lawrence Friedman, District Attorney, Batavia (David E. Gann of Counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.06[1] ). “Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court erred in failing to advise him of his right to a hearing concerning his alleged violations of the plea agreement prior to imposing an enhanced sentence” ( People v. Gibson, 52 A.D.3d 1227, 1227, 859 N.Y.S.2d 821; see also People v. Sprague, 82 A.D.3d 1649, 919 N.Y.S.2d 433, lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 801, 929 N.Y.S.2d 110, 952 N.E.2d 1105; People v. Perry, 252 A.D.2d 990, 675 N.Y.S.2d 924, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 929, 680 N.Y.S.2d 470, 703 N.E.2d 282). In any event, that contention is without merit. Pursuant to the plea agreement, in order to receive the promised sentence, defendant was required to comply with a curfew, to appear as required by the probation officer preparing the presentence report and to remain arrest free. Defendant admitted that he had been rearrested and violated his curfew ( see People v. Valencia, 3 N.Y.3d 714, 715–716, 786 N.Y.S.2d 374, 819 N.E.2d 990; People v. Laskowski, 46 A.D.3d 1383, 847 N.Y.S.2d 883), and he did not contest the remaining accusations concerning violations of the sentencing conditions. Consequently, we conclude that defendant was not entitled to a hearing before the court enhanced his sentence ( see generally People v. Figgins, 87 N.Y.2d 840, 637 N.Y.S.2d 684, 661 N.E.2d 156).
The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.