| People v Scott |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 09255 [101 AD3d 1773] |
| December 28, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dennis Scott,Appellant. |
—[*1] Jon E. Budelmann, District Attorney, Auburn (Christopher T. Valdina of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Mark H. Fandrich, A.J.), renderedSeptember 20, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of acontrolled substance in the third degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of criminalsale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]). Althoughdefendant's contention that County Court erred in failing to hold an Outley hearing to determinethe legality of his postplea arrest survives his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Arrington, 94 AD3d 903,903 [2012]; People v Peck, 90 AD3d1500, 1501 [2011]; People vButler, 49 AD3d 894, 895 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 932 [2008],reconsideration denied 11 NY3d 830 [2008]), that contention is nevertheless unpreserved forour review inasmuch as he failed to request such a hearing and did not move to withdraw his plea onthat ground (see People v Anderson, 99AD3d 1239, 1239 [2012]; People vBragg, 96 AD3d 1071, 1071 [2012]; Arrington, 94 AD3d at 903). We decline toexercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice(see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]), particularly in light of defendant's admission that, less than threeweeks after pleading guilty, he purchased and possessed heroin in violation of an express condition ofthe plea agreement.
Defendant likewise failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in imposingan enhanced sentence without affording him an opportunity to withdraw his plea because he did notobject to the enhanced sentence, nor did he move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment ofconviction on that ground (see People vSprague, 82 AD3d 1649, 1649 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 801 [2011]; People v Magliocco, 78 AD3d 1648,1649 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 798 [2011]). In any event, that contention lacks merit. Therecord establishes that defendant "was clearly informed of the consequences of his failure" to abide bythe conditions of his plea agreement (Sprague, 82 AD3d at 1649; see People v Winters, 82 AD3d 1691,1691 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 810 [2011]). Thus, upon defendant's violation of a conditionof the plea agreement, the court was "no longer bound by the agreement and [was] free to impose agreater sentence without offering . . . defendant an opportunity to withdraw his. . . plea" (Sprague, 82 AD3d at 1649 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Faso, 82 AD3d 1584,1584 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 816 [2011], [*2]reconsideration denied 17 NY3d 952 [2011]; People v Vaillant, 77 AD3d 1389,1390 [2010]).
Defendant further contends that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe given his age, health, anddrug addiction. That contention is properly before us despite defendant's valid waiver of the right toappeal because the court "failed to advise defendant of the potential periods of incarceration that couldbe imposed, including the potential periods of incarceration for an enhanced sentence . . ., before he waived his right to appeal" (People v Trisvan, 8 AD3d 1067, 1067 [2004], lv denied 3NY3d 682 [2004]; see People vHuggins, 45 AD3d 1380, 1380-1381 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]; People v Mack, 38 AD3d 1292, 1293[2007]). We nevertheless reject defendant's contention. Defendant has a lengthy criminal history, whichincludes convictions of petit larceny, criminal sale of a controlled substance, and robbery. The statementof defendant that he is HIV positive, without any additional information as to the state of his health, isinsufficient to warrant a reduction of the sentence. Defendant is only 56 years old and, contrary to hiscontention, the seven-year sentence does not equate to a de facto death sentence (see People vSpitzley, 303 AD2d 837, 838 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 599 [2003]; People vJones, 290 AD2d 726, 727 [2002], lv denied 97 NY2d 756 [2002]). Moreover, thecircumstances defendant cites on appeal, i.e., his age, health, and drug addiction, were before the courtat the time of sentencing (see People v Tasber, 273 AD2d 542, 543 [2000], lv denied95 NY2d 858 [2000]). Thus, defendant has not established "extraordinary circumstances. . . that would warrant a reduction of the sentence as a matter of discretion in the interestof justice" (People v Taplin, 1 AD3d1044, 1046 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 635 [2004] [internal quotation marks omitted];see generally People v McGarry, 219 AD2d 744, 744 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d848 [1995]).
Finally, we reject defendant's unsupported contention that the court punished him for his heroinaddiction. Present—Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, Whalen and Martoche, JJ.