| People v Arrington |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 02702 [94 AD3d 903] |
| April 10, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Leonard Arrington, Appellant. |
—[*1] Marianne Karas, Armonk, N.Y., for appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jaeger, J.,at plea; Aaron, J., at sentencing), rendered February 15, 2011, convicting him of criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlledsubstance in the seventh degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248[2006]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273 [1992]; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1[1989]). Although the defendant's waiver is thus valid, it does not preclude review of his claimthat he was denied his right to due process because the County Court did not hold an evidentiaryhearing regarding the basis for his post-plea arrest on unrelated crimes before imposing anenhanced sentence (see People vButler, 49 AD3d 894, 895 [2008]; People v Kitchens, 46 AD3d 577, 578 [2007]; People v Ricketts, 27 AD3d 488[2006]; People v Garner, 18 AD3d669, 670 [2005]; People vStowe, 15 AD3d 597, 598 [2005]; People v Scott P., 275 AD2d 723 [2000];People v Miles, 268 AD2d 489, 490 [2000]). However, this issue is unpreserved forappellate review because the defendant never objected to the adequacy of the inquiry conductedby the County Court, or moved to withdraw his plea (see People v Kitchens, 46 AD3d at578; People v Darcy, 34 AD3d230, 231 [2006]; People vBenn, 23 AD3d 574 [2005]; People v Potter, 288 AD2d 330 [2001]; Peoplev Miles, 268 AD2d at 490). In any event, the inquiry conducted by the County Court wassufficient to determine that there was a legitimate basis for the defendant's post-plea arrest, andthus satisfied the requirements of due process (see People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702,712-713 [1993]; see also People vValencia, 3 NY3d 714, 715 [2004]; People v Timberlake, 82 AD3d 1134, 1135 [2011]; People v Serrano, 79 AD3d 772[2010]; People v Potter, 288 AD2d at 330).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his remainingcontentions, including his claim that his enhanced sentence was excessive (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737,738 [2006]; People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; People v Crews, 92 AD3d 795[2012]; People v Pook, 73 AD3d952, 953 [2010]), his ineffective assistance of counsel argument, which is unrelated to thevoluntariness of his plea (see People vDuah, 91 AD3d 884 [2012];People v Yarborough, 83 AD3d 875 [2011]), and his challenge to the procedure utilizedin sentencing him (see People vCollier, 71 AD3d 909, [*2]910 [2010]). Skelos, J.P.,Eng, Belen and Cohen, JJ., concur.