| People v Ingram |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04027 [118 AD3d 722] |
| June 4, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Lloyd Ingram, Appellant. |
Mark Diamond, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, N.Y. (Elizabeth L. Schulz andRobert Middlemiss of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County(Berry, J.), rendered December 5, 2012, convicting him of attempted criminal possessionof a forged instrument in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
As the People correctly concede, the defendant's waiver of his right to appeal wasinvalid (see People vFinnegan, 112 AD3d 847 [2013]; People v Gil, 109 AD3d 484 [2013]) and, thus, does notforeclose his challenge to the procedures the County Court utilized in adjudicating him asecond felony offender. However, the defendant's challenge is unpreserved for appellatereview (see People v Chase,101 AD3d 1141 [2012]; People v Washington, 89 AD3d 1140, 1142 [2011]). In anyevent, the defendant's challenge is without merit. Although the County Court did notspecifically ask the defendant if he wished to controvert the allegations in the secondfelony offender statement, he acknowledged that he was the person identified in thestatement, that he had previously been convicted after trial, that his conviction had notbeen reversed on appeal, and that he had no basis for challenging the legality orconstitutionality of that conviction. Moreover, on appeal, the defendant has not allegedany grounds to controvert the second felony offender statement (see People v Jackson, 114AD3d 807 [2014]). Under these circumstances, the County Court's omission was aharmless oversight (see People v Chase, 101 AD3d at 1141; People v McAllister, 47 AD3d731, 731-732 [2008]; People v Flores, 40 AD3d 876, 878 [2007]). Mastro, J.P.,Leventhal, Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.