| People v French |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03497 [72 AD3d 1397] |
| April 29, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v RobertFrench, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen B. Hogan, District Attorney, Lake George (Emilee B. Davenport of counsel), forrespondent.
Malone Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County (Hall, Jr., J.),rendered July 3, 2008, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of driving whileintoxicated.
Defendant waived indictment and agreed to be prosecuted by a superior court informationcharging him with driving while intoxicated. Pursuant to a negotiated plea bargain, defendantpleaded guilty as charged, waived his right to appeal and was placed on one year of interimprobation that required, among other things, defendant to successfully participate in the WarrenCounty Treatment Court. During the plea proceedings, defendant executed a treatment courtcontract indicating that he would abide by all the terms and conditions of that program and wasinformed that his failure to do so would result in his termination from treatment court and aprison sentence of 1
We affirm. Contrary to defendant's assertion, County Court did not abuse its discretion byimposing the enhanced sentence without conducting a formal hearing (see People v Valencia, 3 NY3d714, 715-716 [2004]; People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 712-713 [1993]). Theviolation of interim probation petition alleged that defendant failed to fulfill the special conditionthat he "[a]void injurious and vicious habits" and that he did not comply with all of therequirements of treatment court. Specifically, the petition asserted that defendant was sanctionedto jail during a [*2]session of treatment court and that, whilebeing escorted out of the session by a correction officer, defendant verbally abused a treatmentcourt coordinator and threatened his probation officer with violence. The record includes a swornstatement from the correction officer supporting the allegations in the petition.
Moreover, upon arriving in County Court—which had also presided over the sessionof treatment court when defendant was sanctioned—in regard to the violation petition,defendant approached his probation officer in a threatening manner. County Court observed theincident and asked defendant if he had anything to say. Defendant made several inappropriateand obscenity-filled responses. Following defendant's diatribe, after observing that defendant hadbeen convicted of driving while intoxicated on seven occasions and that he had been arrested 26times in 24 years, County Court began reciting its understanding of the events resulting indefendant's violation petition. Defendant disrespectfully interrupted County Court's recitation ofthose events and the court thereafter imposed the enhanced sentence. Under such circumstances,we have no difficulty concluding that County Court imposed the enhanced sentence only after itwas sufficiently assured that the information upon which it based the sentence was reliable andaccurate (see People v Saucier, 69AD3d 1125, 1126 [2010]; People vRollins, 50 AD3d 1535, 1536 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 939 [2008]; seegenerally People v Dixon, 295 AD2d 699, 700-701 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 709[2002]).
Finally, defendant's appeal waiver—which he does not challenge—foreclosesour review of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim because he does not allege that itaffected the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Wise, 29 AD3d 1216, 1216 [2006], lv denied7 NY3d 852 [2006]; People vBlaydes, 19 AD3d 935, 936 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 803 [2005]).
Peters, J.P., Lahtinen, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.