| People v Reynolds |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 05105 [85 AD3d 825] |
| June 7, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Marlon Bryan Reynolds, Also Known as Bryan Reynolds,Appellant. |
—[*1] William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.),rendered September 25, 2009, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree andassault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea was involuntary because the County Court advisedhim that the plea offer could be withdrawn if he wished additional time to retain new counsel isunpreserved for appellate review (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995]; People v Kulmatycski, 83 AD3d734 [2011]; People vScivolette, 80 AD3d 630, 631 [2011]; People v McNair, 79 AD3d 908, 909 [2010]). In any event, therecord demonstrates that the defendant had nearly four months to consider the plea offer prior tothe entry of his plea, and that during this period, the defendant was granted two adjournmentsbecause he had consulted with a new attorney whom he ultimately did not retain. Under thesecircumstances, the defendant's request for an adjournment to retain new counsel was a dilatorytactic, and the County Court's refusal to extend the availability of the plea offer in the event thatproceedings were adjourned did not deprive the defendant of his right to counsel of his ownchoosing (see People v Arroyave, 49 NY2d 264, 271-272 [1980]; People v Allison, 69 AD3d 740,741 [2010]; People v Campbell, 54AD3d 959, 960 [2008]; People vPlato, 22 AD3d 507 [2005]). Furthermore, nothing that occurred during the pleaallocution called into question the voluntariness of the defendant's plea (see People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780,781 [2005]; People v Kulmatycski,83 AD3d 734 [2011]; People vMartinez, 78 AD3d 966, 967 [2010]).
The defendant's claim that the orders of protection issued in favor of the two shootingvictims at sentencing were invalid because the County Court failed to articulate on the record itsreasons for issuing the orders pursuant to CPL 530.13 (4) is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310[2004]; People v Decker, 77 AD3d675 [2010]; People vKulyeshie, 71 AD3d 1478, 1479 [2010]). In any event, CPL 530.13 (4) requires a courtto state its reasons for issuing or declining to issue an order of protection at sentencing onlywhere it has previously issued a temporary order of protection in favor of [*2]the crime victim, which is not the case here.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the term of imprisonment imposed upon hisconviction of attempted murder in the second degree was not excessive (see People vSuitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Eng, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.