| People v Baxter |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 06108 [86 AD3d 648] |
| July 26, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JohnBaxter, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Ronnie Jane Lamm of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hinrichs,J.), rendered September 7, 2010, convicting him of driving while intoxicated per se underVehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (2), driving while intoxicated under Vehicle and TrafficLaw § 1192 (3), and failing to stay in a designated lane while operating a motor vehicleunder Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128 (a), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made,and that the People failed to file a special information charging that he had previously beenconvicted of driving while intoxicated. These claims are unpreserved for appellate review sincethe defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise the issue before the SupremeCourt (see People v Hardee, 84AD3d 835 [2011]; People vKulmatycski, 83 AD3d 734 [2011]). In any event, the defendant's contention that hisplea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made is without merit. As to his claim thatthe People failed to file a special information pursuant to CPL 200.60 charging that he hadpreviously been convicted of driving while intoxicated, that procedural defect was waived bydefendant's plea of guilty (see People vSanchez, 55 AD3d 460 [2008]; People v Viano, 287 AD2d 584 [2001]).
Further, because the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receivethe sentence which was thereafter actually imposed, he has no basis to now complain that hissentence was excessive (see People vNimerofsky, 78 AD3d 735 [2010]; People v De Alvarez, 59 AD3d 732 [2009]; People v Fanelli, 8 AD3d 296[2004]; People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816 [1984]). In any event, the sentence imposedwas not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Skelos, J.P., Balkin,Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.