| People v Miller |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 09549 [90 AD3d 1416] |
| December 29, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher L.Miller, Appellant. |
—[*1] Nicole M. Duve, District Attorney, Canton (Jonathan Becker of counsel), forrespondent.
McCarthy, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County(Richards, J.), rendered July 27, 2010, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed asentence of imprisonment.
In April 2007, defendant was sentenced to 10 years of probation following his conviction ofrape in the third degree. Between January 2008 and May 2009, defendant was charged with andadmitted to violating the terms of his probation three times. On each occasion, defendant's termof probation was extended. In May 2010, a fourth violation of probation petition was filed.Defendant admitted to violating the conditions of his probation by failing to report to hisprobation officer as required, failing to submit to drug testing and failing to cooperate withrecommended substance abuse treatment. County Court revoked defendant's probation andsentenced him to a prison term of 1 to 4 years. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's claim that his guilty plea to the violation petition was not knowingly,intelligently and voluntarily entered is unpreserved for our review in light of defendant's failureto move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Cerone, 75 AD3d835, 835-836 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 850 [2010]; People v Diaz, 26 AD3d 644, 645[2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 755 [2006]). In any event, County Court advised defendant ofthe ramifications of pleading guilty and defendant acknowledged his understanding [*2]and that he was entering his plea voluntarily. Defendantaffirmatively stated that the medications he was taking did not affect his ability to comprehendthe proceedings and there is nothing in the record to indicate that his plea was not knowing,intelligent and voluntary (see People vGomez, 72 AD3d 1337, 1338 [2010]; People v Williamson, 301 AD2d 860,861-862 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 567 [2003]).
Defendant's contention that County Court erred in sentencing him without an updatedpresentence report is also unpreserved for our review, due to his failure to request an updatedreport, raise an objection at sentencing or move to vacate the judgment (see People v Clark, 80 AD3d1079, 1079 [2011]; People vRuff, 50 AD3d 1167, 1168 [2008]). Finally, we reject defendant's claim that hissentence was harsh and excessive, given his repeated violations of the terms of probation and theabsence of extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction in the sentence (see People v DeMarco, 60 AD3d1107, 1109 [2009]).
Peters, J.P., Rose, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.