| People v Hall |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02179 [82 AD3d 1619] |
| March 25, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v WillieHall, Appellant. |
—[*1] Willie Hall, defendant-appellant pro se. William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Victoria M. White of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John J. Brunetti, A.J.),rendered October 2, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assaultin the first degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of assault inthe first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [4]), defendant contends that his plea was notknowing, voluntary, and intelligent because it was coerced by Supreme Court. Defendant failedto move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground andtherefore failed to preserve his contention for our review (see People v Carlisle, 50 AD3d 1451 [2008], lv denied 10NY3d 957 [2008]). In any event, defendant's contention is belied by the record inasmuch as,during the plea proceeding, defendant denied that he had been threatened or otherwise influencedagainst his will into pleading guilty (seePeople v Worthy, 46 AD3d 1382 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 773 [2008]; People v Gradia, 28 AD3d 1206,1206-1207 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 756 [2006]). Furthermore, defendant was notcoerced into pleading guilty by virtue of the fact that the court merely informed him of the rangeof sentences that he faced if he proceeded to trial and was convicted (see People v Boyde, 71 AD3d1442, 1443 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 747 [2010]; People v Lando, 61 AD3d 1389[2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 746 [2009]). Also contrary to defendant's contention, underthe circumstances of this case the court did not coerce him into pleading guilty by commentingon the likelihood that defendant would be acquitted of a particular charge or on the strength ofthe People's evidence against him (seegenerally People v Hamilton, 45 AD3d 1396 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 765[2008]; People v Campbell, 236 AD2d 877, 878 [1997]; People v King, 169AD2d 480, 481 [1991]).
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that he was not properlyadjudicated a second violent felony offender because neither the People nor the court compliedwith CPL 400.15 (see People vMyers, 52 AD3d 1229 [2008]; see also People v Tatum, 39 AD3d 571 [2007]; see generallyPeople v Bouyea, 64 NY2d 1140, 1142-1143 [1985]). In any event, that contention iswithout merit. The record establishes that there was "substantial compliance with CPL 400.15. . . inasmuch as both defendant and defense counsel 'received adequate notice andan opportunity [*2]to be heard with respect to the priorconviction' " (Myers, 52 AD3d at 1230; see generally Bouyea, 64 NY2d at 1142).Finally, contrary to the contention of defendant in his pro se supplemental brief, the sentence isnot unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Carni, Green and Gorski, JJ.