| People v Overton |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 02285 [105 AD3d 1072] |
| April 4, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v VictorOverton, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kevin C. Kortright, District Attorney, Fort Edward (Katherine G. Henley ofcounsel), for respondent.
Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County(McKeighan, J.), rendered February 10, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea ofguilty of the crime of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree.
Defendant, a prison inmate, was charged with promoting prison contraband in thefirst degree after he was found in possession of a sharpened, folded tin can top with ahandle made of gauze and tape. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendantpleaded guilty to the reduced charge of attempted promoting prison contraband in thefirst degree and was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of 1½to 3 years. County Court also imposed the mandatory surcharge, in addition to the DNAdatabank and crime victim assistance fee, and thereafter denied defendant's pro se motionto defer payment of the surcharge. This appeal ensued.
We affirm. Initially, to the extent that defendant contends that his plea wasinvoluntary due to County Court's failure to advise him of the maximum term ofimprisonment he faced, the record does not reflect that defendant moved to withdraw hisplea or vacate the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, this issue is unpreserved for ourreview (see People v Fields,79 AD3d 1448, 1449 [2010]; cf. People v Young, 102 AD3d 1061, 1061 [2013]), "andwe decline [defendant's invitation] to take corrective action in the interest of justice"(People v Fields, 79 [*2]AD3d at 1449 [internalquotation marks and citation omitted]).
Defendant's related challenge to the imposition of the mandatory surcharge andrelevant fees is unpersuasive. "The mandatory surcharge, crime victim assistance fee andDNA databank fee are not components of a defendant's sentence" (People v Hoti, 12 NY3d742, 743 [2009] [citation omitted]). Accordingly, County Court's failure topronounce these charges prior to accepting defendant's plea "did not deprive. . . defendant of the opportunity to knowingly, voluntarily and intelligentlychoose among alternative courses of action" (id. at 743; see People v Ryan, 83 AD3d1128, 1130 [2011]).
Finally, defendant's assertion that County Court erred in summarily denying hisrequest to defer payment of the mandatory surcharge is not properly before us.Defendant's remaining contentions, to the extent not specifically addressed, have beenexamined and found to be lacking in merit.
Rose, J.P., Lahtinen and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.