| People v Laskowski |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 10244 [46 AD3d 1383] |
| December 21, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v KennethLaskowski, Appellant. |
—[*1] Lawrence Friedman, District Attorney, Batavia (David E. Gann of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered May19, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal saleof a controlled substance in the third degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby isunanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty ofattempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law §§110.00, 220.39 [1]). The valid waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses hischallenge to the severity of the period of postrelease supervision (see People v Williams, 6 AD3d746, 748 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 650 [2004]). Although the waiver of the right toappeal does not encompass the further contention of defendant that County Court erred inimposing an enhanced term of incarceration based on postplea conduct (see People v Huggins, 45 AD3d1380 [2007]), we conclude that defendant's contention lacks merit. Contrary to thecontention of defendant, the court was not required to conduct a hearing prior to imposing anenhanced sentence inasmuch as defendant admitted acts that constituted violations of the pleaagreement (see People v Valencia, 3NY3d 714, 715-716 [2004]; seegenerally People v Chiclana, 21 AD3d 823, 824 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 753[2005]). Finally, to the extent that the contention of defendant that he was denied effectiveassistance of counsel survives his guilty plea and his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Eastman, 45 AD3d1411 [2007]), we conclude that it is lacking in merit (see generally People v Ford, 86NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). Present—Martoche, J.P., Smith, Centra, Peradotto and Green, JJ.