| People v Woods |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 06396 [110 AD3d 748] |
| October 2, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Lonnie Woods, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Andrea M. DiGregorio andJoseph Mogelnicki of counsel), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Carter, J.), rendered October 13, 2010, convicting him of robbery in the first degree,upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and (2) a resentence of the same courtimposed October 28, 2010.
Ordered that the judgment and resentence are affirmed.
The defendant asserts that the Supreme Court erred in imposing restitution as part ofthe sentence, and requests that the restitution component of the sentence be vacated. Thedefendant's contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see People vThompson, 105 AD3d 1067 [2013]; People v Fields, 101 AD3d 1043[2012]). The defendant does not contend that his plea of guilty was rendered involuntaryor unknowing due to any failure to advise him about restitution at the plea proceeding,and he does not seek to withdraw his plea on that ground. Thus, the defendant is notexcused from the preservation requirement due to any lack of opportunity at thesentencing proceeding to move to withdraw his plea (see People v McAlpin, 17 NY3d936 [2011]; People v Louree, 8 NY3d 541, 545-546 [2007]). We decline to exercise ourinterest of justice jurisdiction to review the defendant's contentions regarding theimposition of restitution.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court failed to fix the time and mannerof performance of the restitution on the record at the time of sentencing also isunpreserved for appellate review (see People v Nathan, 79 AD3d 910, 911 [2010]), and wedecline to review that contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court was not obligated to make a "minimal inquiry" into thedefendant's request to substitute new counsel since his request was based on a conclusorystatement and reflected only a delaying tactic (People v Linares, 2 NY3d 507, 510-511 [2004]; see People v Stevenson, 36AD3d 634, 634-635 [2007]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance ofcounsel [*2]due to his attorney's alleged misstatementsregarding the term of supervised release is without merit (see Strickland vWashington, 466 US 668 [1984]; People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277 [2004]).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review, and wedecline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Eng, P.J., Rivera,Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.