Opinion
10-15-2014
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Hector MORALES, appellant.
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Alfred J. Cicale of counsel), for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Thomas Constant of counsel), for respondent.
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Alfred J. Cicale of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Thomas Constant of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Condon, J.), rendered April 12, 2013, convicting him of attempted burglary in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to his enhanced sentence is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Murray, 15 N.Y.3d 725, 727, 906 N.Y.S.2d 521, 932 N.E.2d 877 ; People v. Godfrey, 33 A.D.3d 623, 624, 822 N.Y.S.2d 135 ; People v. Thomas, 2 A.D.3d 758, 759, 768 N.Y.S.2d 614 ; People v. Howze, 243 A.D.2d 652, 668 N.Y.S.2d 899 ). In any event, the record demonstrates that, after the defendant entered his plea, the Supreme Court expressly warned the defendant that if he did not comply with certain conditions, including the condition that he not get arrested on a new charge, the court would no longer be bound by its sentencing promise, and could impose a “harsher sentence.” Since the defendant was arrested on an unrelated charge after the plea proceeding, the court was authorized to impose an appropriate enhanced sentence (see People v. Hicks, 98 N.Y.2d 185, 188–189, 746 N.Y.S.2d 441, 774 N.E.2d 205 ; People v. Figgins, 87 N.Y.2d 840, 841, 637 N.Y.S.2d 684, 661 N.E.2d 156 ; People v. Avery, 85 N.Y.2d 503, 506–507, 626 N.Y.S.2d 726, 650 N.E.2d 384 ).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit (see People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213 ; People v. Stultz, 2 N.Y.3d 277, 287, 778 N.Y.S.2d 431, 810 N.E.2d 883 ).
RIVERA, J.P., HALL, AUSTIN, MILLER and MALTESE, JJ., concur.