| People v Ayen |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07345 [55 AD3d 1305] |
| October 3, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph D. Ayen,Appellant. |
—[*1] Cindy F. Intschert, District Attorney, Watertown (Walter M. Jeram, Jr., of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Jefferson County Court (Kim H. Martusewicz, J.), renderedFebruary 6, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminalpossession of a weapon in the third degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attemptedcriminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.02 [3]),defendant contends that County Court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence based on his arrest onan unrelated matter between the time of the plea proceeding and sentencing. We reject that contention.The record establishes that the court's warning at the plea proceeding that defendant would receive anenhanced sentence in the event that he committed any new crimes or got into "any other trouble with thelaw" pending sentencing was neither unclear nor ambiguous (see generally People v Coleman,266 AD2d 227 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 946 [2000]; People v Kessner, 181AD2d 1044 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 833 [1992]). The record belies the further contentionof defendant that the court did not conduct a sufficient inquiry into his arrest before imposing theenhanced sentence, to ensure that there was a legitimate basis for the arrest (see generally People vOutley, 80 NY2d 702, 712-713 [1993]; People v McClemore, 276 AD2d 32, 36[2000]; People v McGirt, 198 AD2d 101, 102-103 [1993]). The court afforded defendant theopportunity to dispute the charges, and defendant admitted that he was in another person's vehicle andthat the police found a gun in the vehicle. Although defendant stated that it was "not right" that he shouldbe arrested when the gun belonged to the owner of the vehicle, we conclude that there was a legitimatebasis for the arrest pursuant to the automobile presumption (see § 265.15 [3]). Thecourt thus did not err in imposing an enhanced sentence (see People v Semple, 23 AD3d 1058 [2005], lv denied 6NY3d 852 [2006]; see also People vHuggins, 45 AD3d 1380 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]; People vMaupin, 198 AD2d 236 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 899 [1993]).Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Green, JJ.