| People v Densmore |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 05665 [120 AD3d 844] |
| August 7, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Brian E. Densmore Appellant. |
Andrew Kossover, Public Defender, Kingston (Michael K. Gould of counsel), forappellant.
D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel),for respondent.
Devine, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams,J.), rendered December 18, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of thecrimes of rape in the second degree (four counts).
In satisfaction of a 10-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to four counts ofrape in the second degree. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant, as a secondfelony offender, to an aggregate prison term of 17 years followed by 15 years ofpostrelease supervision. Defendant appeals and we affirm.
We reject defendant's contention that he was improperly adjudicated as a secondfelony offender inasmuch as County Court was not obligated to expressly advise him thathe had the right to challenge the constitutionality of his prior conviction (see People v Wood, 108 AD3d932, 932-933 [2013]; People v Smith, 121 AD2d 771, 772 [1986]). To thecontrary, where defendant was provided with a predicate felony statement, declined tocontrovert the allegations contained therein and admitted to the prior conviction forcriminal mischief in the second degree, we find that the court substantially complied withthe dictates of CPL 400.21 (3) and that defendant was properly sentenced as a secondfelony offender (see People v Wood, 108 AD3d at 933; People v Ellis, 53 AD3d776, 777 [2008]).
[*2] Finally, althoughcertain comments by County Court during sentencing could be characterized asintemperate, given the nature of defendant's crimes—unprotected intercourse withfour different girls under the age of 15 after befriending them for that expresspurpose—we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances thatwould warrant a reduction of his sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Olson, 110 AD3d1373, 1377 [2013]; Peoplev Beliard, 101 AD3d 1236, 1239 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1096[2013]).
Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose and Lynch, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.