| People v McGregor |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 05466 [119 AD3d 1235] |
| July 24, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| 1 The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vGary L. McGregor, Appellant. |
John A. Cirando, Syracuse, for appellant.
Alexander Lesyk, Special Prosecutor, Norwood, for respondent.
McCarthy, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County(Richards, J.), rendered September 21, 2012, which revoked defendant's probation andimposed a sentence of imprisonment.
In 2009, defendant pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated and was sentenced toa five-year term of probation. In May 2012, a declaration of delinquency was filed and,following a hearing, defendant's probation was continued to allow him to participate in atreatment program. Subsequently, an amended declaration of delinquency was filedagainst defendant in September 2012, and he pleaded guilty to violating his probation byfailing to comply with treatment, consuming alcohol and operating a motor vehicle. Inexchange for his plea, County Court sentenced defendant to a prison term of 14 to 42months and a three-year conditional discharge requiring him to install an ignitioninterlock device. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea is unpreserved forreview inasmuch as the record fails to indicate that he moved to withdraw his plea ofguilty to the probation violation (see People v Secore, 102 AD3d 1057, 1058 [2013], lvdenied 21 NY3d 1019 [2013]; People v Cogswell, 94 AD3d 1236, 1237 [2012], lvdenied 19 NY3d 958 [2012]). Moreover, defendant made no statements during hisplea allocution that were inconsistent with his guilt or that cast doubt on thevoluntariness of his plea, so the exception to the preservation requirement is notapplicable (see People v Secore, 102 AD3d at 1058; People v Lewis, 69AD3d [*2]1232, 1234 [2010]).
We reject defendant's contention that his sentence was harsh and excessive. Givenhis repeated inability to comply with the terms of his probation that afforded him theopportunity to avoid a prison term, we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinarycircumstances warranting a modification of his sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Riley, 97 AD3d982, 983 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 935 [2012]; People v Dowling, 92 AD3d1034, 1035 [2012], lv denied 18 NY3d 993 [2012]). We have examineddefendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Stein, J.P., Garry, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.