| People v Borges |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 00933 [103 AD3d 747] |
| February 13, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Shakim Borges, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Thomas Constant of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (J.Doyle, J.), rendered April 5, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlledsubstance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarilyentered because the County Court failed to advise him at the time of the plea that hissentence would include a period of postrelease supervision. Contrary to the People'scontention, a claim that a plea of guilty was not knowingly or voluntarily enteredsurvives even a valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Seaberg, 74NY2d 1, 10 [1989]; People vTuffini, 101 AD3d 1053 [2012]). Nevertheless, the defendant's contention isunpreserved for appellate review because the defendant was made aware of thepostrelease supervision component of his sentence at the outset of the sentencingproceeding, and nonetheless failed to move to withdraw his plea prior to the impositionof sentence (see People vMurray, 15 NY3d 725 [2010]; cf. People v McAlpin, 17 NY3d 936, 938 [2011]; People v Louree, 8 NY3d541, 545-546 [2007]). We decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest ofjustice jurisdiction. Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.