| People v Foster |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06819 [99 AD3d 812] |
| October 10, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Hasheem Foster, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Laurie K. Gibbons and Jessica L.Cepriano of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Grella, J.),rendered May 4, 2010, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree(three counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of aweapon in the third degree, and criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, upon his plea ofguilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Kase,J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to lawenforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
At the suppression hearing, the defendant did not raise the arguments he now raises onappeal as grounds for suppressing statements he made to the police at the police station.Accordingly, the defendant failed to preserve these arguments for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People v Martin, 50 NY2d 1029 [1980]; People v Tutt, 38 NY2d1011, 1013 [1976]). In any event, the defendant's arguments are without merit (see People vAnderson, 42 NY2d 35, 38 [1977]; People v Berrios, 28 NY2d 361, 367 [1971]; People v Gega, 74 AD3d 1229[2010]; People v James, 72 AD3d844 [2010]; People v McCants,67 AD3d 821, 823 [2009]; People vAlomar, 55 AD3d 617 [2008]; People v Osorio, 49 AD3d 562 [2008]).
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was coerced is unpreserved for appellatereview since he did not seek to vacate his plea or otherwise raise this issue before the SupremeCourt (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Clarke, 93 NY2d 904, 905 [1999]; People v Perez, 51 AD3d 1043[2008]). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit. The Supreme Court did notthreaten to sentence the defendant to the maximum term upon a conviction after trial, but onlyinformed him of his possible sentence exposure were he to proceed to trial. Such remarks areinformative, not coercive (see People vStrong, 80 AD3d 717 [2011]; People v Bravo, 72 AD3d 697, 698 [2010]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Miller, JJ., concur.