People v Alexander

2014 NY Slip Op 08927 [123 AD3d 1340]

December 24, 2014

Appellate Division, Third Department

As corrected through Wednesday, January 28, 2015

[*1]

The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Melissa Alexander, 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.

Lahtinen, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County(Williams, J.), rendered January 2, 2013, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty ofthe crime of aggravated criminal contempt.

Defendant pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging her withaggravated criminal contempt, and further waived her right to appeal from the convictionand sentence. County Court agreed to sentence her, as a second felony offender, to aprison term of 21/2 to 5 years. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Defendant does not challenge the validity of her appeal waiver, which wefind to have been entered into in a knowing, intelligent and voluntary manner. She doesargue that County Court did not comply with CPL 400.21 when it failed to explicitlyinquire into whether she wished to challenge the constitutionality of her prior conviction.While that contention survives her appeal waiver (see People v Walton, 101 AD3d 1489, 1490 [2012], lvdenied 20 NY3d 1105 [2013]), it is without merit (see People v Densmore, 120AD3d 844, 845 [2014]; People v Wilkins, 118 AD3d 1038, 1039 [2014], lvdenied 24 NY3d 965 [2014]; People v Bonaventure, 117 AD3d 1281, 1282 [2014]).Inasmuch as defense counsel indicated that defendant did not wish to controvert theallegations in the prior felony information, and defendant herself admitted that she hadbeen convicted of the crime in question, County Court substantially complied with theprovisions of [*2]CPL 400.21 (3) (see id.).

Defendant's remaining challenge to the severity of the agreed-upon sentence isprecluded by her appeal waiver (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]).

Garry, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.