| People v Cruz |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 01383 [92 AD3d 1138] |
| February 23, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Miguel Cruz,Appellant. |
—[*1] James R. Farrell, District Attorney, Monticello (Bonnie M. Mitzner of counsel), forrespondent.
Defendant waived indictment and, in satisfaction of a superior court information, pleadedguilty to criminal sexual act in the first degree. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant to18 years in prison, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant nowappeals, arguing that his plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent due to the fact that hewas unaware at the time of his plea that his sentence would include a period of postreleasesupervision.
Defendant's contention is unpreserved for our review. "[A] defendant pleading guilty to adeterminate sentence must be aware of the postrelease supervision component of that sentence inorder to knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently choose among alternative courses of action" (People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 245[2005]; accord People v Wade, 86AD3d 713, 714 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 823 [2011]). While preservation isunnecessary where a defendant was not made aware that postrelease supervision was part of thesentence, if the sentencing court advises the defendant of the term of postrelease supervision, heor she must object or seek appropriate relief from the court at the time of sentencing (see People v Davis, 79 AD3d1267, 1269 [2010], [*2]lv denied 16 NY3d 797[2011]; see also People v Murray,15 NY3d 725, 726-727 [2010]; People v Young, 85 AD3d 1489, 1489-1490 [2011]). Here,defendant did not object at sentencing to the imposition of the five-year term of postreleasesupervision, which the prosecutor had stated at the plea proceedings was part of the pleaagreement. Accordingly, as this argument is unpreserved, we affirm.
Mercure, A.P.J., Peters, Malone Jr. and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.