| People v Beach |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04507 [118 AD3d 905] |
| June 18, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v William D. Beach, Appellant. |
Arza Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y., for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, DutchessCounty (Forman, J.), rendered December 8, 2011, revoking a sentence of probationpreviously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he violated a conditionthereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previousconviction of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree.
Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention regarding the sufficiency of the factual allocution of hisadmission to a violation of a condition of a previously imposed sentence of probation isunpreserved for appellate review (see People v Rogers, 45 AD3d 786, 787 [2007]; People v Carden, 27 AD3d573 [2006]). The exception to the preservation requirement is not applicable here,since the factual recitation did not clearly cast significant doubt upon the defendant'sviolation or call into question the voluntariness of his admission (see People vLopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Nash, 38 AD3d 684 [2007]; People v Rizzo, 38 AD3d571 [2007]). In any event, the record establishes that the defendant knowingly,intelligently, and voluntarily admitted that he violated a condition of his probation(see CPL 410.70 [3]; People v Smith, 255 AD2d 343 [1998]; People vMigneco, 196 AD2d 849 [1993]; People v Hunter, 194 AD2d 628[1993]).
Upon finding that the defendant violated a condition of his probation, the SupremeCourt was authorized to revoke probation and sentence the defendant to an authorizedterm of imprisonment (see CPL 410.70 [5]; People v Haas, 245 AD2d825 [1997]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the sentence imposed was notexcessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review(see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, without merit. Mastro, J.P., Lott, Sgroiand Cohen, JJ., concur.