Opinion
June 30, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (George Roberts, J.).
Defendant's claim that he was improperly adjudicated a second felony offender on the basis of his conviction in Pennsylvania for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute (35 Pa Cons Stat § 780-113 [a] [30]), because the mens rea element of that statute is allegedly broader than its New York counterpart, is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Flipping, 230 A.D.2d 650, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 864), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this contention, we would find that the Pennsylvania statute, like its New York counterpart (criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree or criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree [Penal Law § 220.16 (1); § 220.06 (1)]), requires "knowing" and not merely "reckless" possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute (People v. Muniz, 74 N.Y.2d 464, 467-468; Commonwealth v. Rambo, 488 Pa. 334, 336, 412 A.2d 535, 536; Commonwealth v. Valette, 531 Pa. 384, 389, 613 A.2d 548, 550).
Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.