| People v Youmans |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03699 [106 AD3d 1036] |
| May 22, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Terry Youmans, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Douglas Noll and Andrea M.DiGregorio of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Gulotta, Jr., J.), rendered January 19, 2011, convicting him of criminal sale of acontrolled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substancein the seventh degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal(see People v Lopez, 6NY3d 248 [2006]). Although the defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is valid, itdoes not preclude appellate review of his claim that he was denied his right to dueprocess because the sentencing court did not conduct a hearing to determine if heviolated a condition of the plea agreement (see People v Arrington, 94 AD3d 903 [2012]; People v Butler, 49 AD3d894, 895 [2008]; People vKitchens, 46 AD3d 577, 578 [2007]).
Sentencing is a critical stage of the criminal proceeding and must satisfy therequirements of due process (see People v Fiammegta, 14 NY3d 90, 96 [2010];People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 712 [1993]). In order to comply with dueprocess, the sentencing court must assure itself that the information upon which it basesthe sentence is reliable and accurate (see People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 712[1993]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the sentencing court conducted aninquiry sufficient to determine whether he violated a condition of the plea agreement byfailing to comply with a drug abuse treatment program (see People v Arrington,94 AD3d at 903; cf. People v Fiammegta, 14 NY3d at 98).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Leventhal,Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.