| People v Manford |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 01193 [125 AD3d 1047] |
| February 11, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vRichard L. Manford, Appellant. |
Albert F. Lawrence, Greenfield Center, for appellant.
Mary E. Rain, District Attorney, Canton (Patricia C. Campbell of counsel), forrespondent.
Lahtinen, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County(Richards, J.), rendered June 25, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty ofthe crime of attempted robbery in the second degree.
In satisfaction of a four-count indictment, defendant entered a guilty plea toattempted robbery in the second degree and waived his right to appeal. He wassentenced, as agreed, to a prison term of 15 years to life as an admitted persistent violentfelony offender. Defendant appeals, and we affirm.
Defendant's sole contention is that County Court failed to follow the properprocedures in sentencing him as a persistent violent felony offender pursuant to CPL400.16 (2) (see CPL 400.15 [2]-[8]). At sentencing, defendant was afforded asufficient opportunity to review and controvert the allegations in the persistent violentfelony offender statement and to accept the court's offer of an adjournment to furtherreview the statement (see CPL 400.15 [4], [6]). Defendant declined the court'soffer of more time to talk to his attorney and does not challenge the validity of the priorconvictions on this appeal. Given his failure to timely controvert the allegations in thestatement or to challenge the predicate convictions or the procedures followed, hisarguments are not preserved for our review (see People v Leszczynski, 96 AD3d 1162, 1164 [2012],lv denied 19 NY3d 998 [2012]; People v Meckwood, 86 AD3d 865, 867 [2011],affd 20 NY3d 69 [2012]). To the extent that defendant contends that the sentenceas a persistent violent felony offender was illegal, a claim that need not be preserved(see People v Nieves, 2 NY3d [*2]310, 315-316[2004]), our review of the record reveals no illegality as there was substantial compliancewith CPL 400.15 and 400.16 (see People v Leszczynski, 96 AD3d 1162, 1164 [2012],lv denied 19 NY3d 998 [2012]). Any failure to specifically inquire if defendantwished to controvert the allegations in the statement was, in this context, harmless error(see People v Califano, 84AD3d 1504, 1507 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 805 [2011]; People v Saddlemire, 50 AD3d1317, 1317 [2008]).
Peters, P.J., McCarthy and Lynch, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.