| People v Anderson |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06704 [99 AD3d 1239] |
| October 5, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lamar T.Anderson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Lawrence Friedman, District Attorney, Batavia (William G. Zickl of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), renderedMarch 23, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse inthe first degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty ofsexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [1]). Defendant failed to preserve forour review his contention that County Court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry pursuant toPeople v Outley (80 NY2d 702 [1993]) into his violation of the conditions of the pleaagreement before imposing an enhanced sentence (see generally People v Vaillant, 77 AD3d 1389, 1389-1390 [2010];People v Dietz, 66 AD3d 1400,1400 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 906 [2009]). Further, inasmuch as defendant concededthat he had lost his sentence cap because of a violation of the conditions of his plea agreement,the court had no independent duty to conduct such an inquiry (see People v Harris, 197AD2d 930, 930 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 850 [1993]). To the extent that defendant'sfurther contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel survives his plea of guilty(see People v Hawkins, 94 AD3d1439, 1440-1441 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 974 [2012]), we reject that contention.We conclude on the record before us that defendant received meaningful representation (seegenerally People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). Contrary to defendant's additionalcontention, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Fahey, J.P., Peradotto,Carni and Sconiers, JJ.