| People v Odom |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03198 [61 AD3d 896] |
| April 21, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Joseph Odom, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, JohnnetteTraill, and Suzanne H. Sullivan of counsel), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron,J., at plea; Griffin, J., at sentencing), both rendered September 20, 2006, convicting him ofrobbery in the second degree under indictment No. 1575/05, and attempted robbery in the firstdegree under indictment No. 2091/05, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
In 2000 the defendant was convicted, in New York County, upon his plea of guilty, ofrobbery in the second degree, a violent felony offense (see Penal Law § 70.02 [1][b]). In July 2006, during a proceeding in Queens County, at which he pleaded guilty and wasadjudicated a second violent felony offender in the two matters before us, the defendant wasgiven the opportunity, as required by CPL 400.15, to controvert the use of his 2000 conviction asa predicate violent felony offense (see CPL 400.15 [3]). He admitted the 2000 convictionand expressly declined to raise any claim in Queens County that it was unconstitutionallyobtained.
On appeal, the defendant argues that his adjudication as a second violent felony offender wasimproper by virtue of the fact that, when he pleaded guilty in New York County in 2000, he wasnot [*2]advised that a period of postrelease supervision would bea part of the sentence imposed. He contends that, as such, the 2000 conviction was entered on aplea of guilty that was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made, and that, therefore, itcould not serve as a predicate violent felony conviction. Having failed to challenge theconstitutionality of the 2000 conviction at the predicate felony proceeding held at the time hepleaded guilty in the matters before us, the defendant waived his current claim (see CPL400.15 [7] [b]; People v Cruz, 56AD3d 570 [2008]; cf. People vCatu, 4 NY3d 242, 245 [2005]). Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.