| People v Castillo-Cordero |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07256 [54 AD3d 1054] |
| September 30, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Santiago Castillo-Cordero, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, JeanetteLifschitz, and Danielle Fenn of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Erlbaum,J.), rendered September 29, 2005, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree (twocounts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligentbecause the court failed to sufficiently inform him of the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty"is unpreserved for appellate review since he did not move to withdraw his plea on this groundprior to sentencing (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726[1995]; People v LeGrady, 50 AD3d 1059 [2008]; People v Ramsey, 49 AD3d565 [2008]; People v Herdt, 45 AD3d 698 [2007]). In any event, the defendant's plea wasknowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d536, 543 [1993]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 [1988]; People v Harris, 61NY2d 9, 17 [1983])" (People v Simpson, 52 AD3d 846, 847 [2008]).
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty should be vacated because the court failedto advise him that he would be subject to a period of postrelease supervision at the time hepleaded guilty is unpreserved for appellate review. While it is true that the defendant initially wasnot advised of a period of postrelease supervision at the time he pleaded guilty, he was broughtback to court and so advised [*2]subsequent thereto and morethan a month before he appeared for sentencing. Thus he had an opportunity to challenge thevoluntariness of his plea, by motion or otherwise, prior to, or even at the commencement of, theactual imposition of sentence (cf. People v Hill, 9 NY3d 189 [2007]; People vLouree, 8 NY3d 541, 545 [2007]). Since he did not raise such a challenge, either formally orinformally, and he was sufficiently advised of a period of postrelease supervision prior tosentencing, the contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see generally People v Lopez,71 NY2d 662 [1988]). Lifson, J.P., Florio, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.