| People v Suarez |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 00776 [103 AD3d 673] |
| February 6, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ernesto Suarez, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marcia R. Kucera of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County(Condon, J.), rendered July 11, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the third degree (fourcounts), reckless endangerment in the first degree, and resisting arrest, upon his plea ofguilty, and imposing sentence, including restitution in the sum of $2,000.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Where a sentencing court considers imposing a sentence that includes restitution, andthe plea minutes do not indicate that a plea of guilty was negotiated with terms thatincluded restitution, the defendant should be given an opportunity at sentencing either towithdraw his plea or to accept the addition of restitution to his negotiated sentence (see People v Gibson, 88 AD3d1012 [2011]; People vOrtega, 61 AD3d 705, 706 [2009]; People v Kegel, 55 AD3d 625 [2008]; People v Henderson, 44 AD3d873, 874 [2007]). Here, although the defendant's plea of guilty was negotiated withterms that did not include restitution, at sentencing, the defendant objected to three out ofthe four restitution orders signed by the Supreme Court, but raised no objection withrespect to the fourth restitution order in favor of the victim in the sum of $2,000 undercount 20 of the indictment. The court thereafter directed the defendant to pay only thesum of $2,000 pursuant to the restitution order in favor of the victim under count 20 ofthe indictment. Accordingly, the defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was notknowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered into because he was not advised of theterms of restitution prior to entering his plea of guilty is unpreserved for appellate review(see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Murray, 15 NY3d 725, 726-727 [2010]), and wedecline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (cf. People v Bruno, 73 AD3d941, 942 [2010]). Dillon, J.P., Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.