People v Chase

2012 NY Slip Op 09077 [101 AD3d 1141]

December 26, 2012

Appellate Division, Second Department

As corrected through Wednesday, February 6, 2013

The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Randolph Chase, Appellant.

—[*1]Mark Diamond, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Sarah S. Rabinowitz and CourtneyWeinberger of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kase, J.),rendered September 20, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts),burglary in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree, and conspiracy in thefourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his challenge to the indictment as containingmultiplicitous counts (see People vNichols, 32 AD3d 1316, 1317 [2006]; People v Nelson, 266 AD2d 730, 731[1999]), as well as his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve his challenge tothe indictment as containing multiplicitous counts, since such a claim does not directly involvethe plea bargaining process (see Peoplev Rodriguez-Ovalles, 74 AD3d 1368, 1368-1369 [2010]; People v Perazzo, 65 AD3d 1058,1059 [2009]).

The defendant's challenge to his adjudication as a second violent felony offender isunpreserved for appellate review (seePeople v Washington, 89 AD3d 1140, 1142 [2011]; People v Califano, 84 AD3d 1504, 1506 [2011]; People v Hargroves, 27 AD3d 765[2006]). In any event, although the Supreme Court did not specifically ask the defendant if hewished to controvert the allegations in the second violent felony offender statement, inasmuch asthe defendant admitted the allegations in the statement and has not alleged any grounds tocontrovert it, this was a harmless oversight (see People v McAllister, 47 AD3d 731, 731-732 [2008]; People v Flores, 40 AD3d 876,878 [2007]).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in anyevent, without merit. Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.