| People v Johnson |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 01197 [125 AD3d 1052] |
| February 11, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vWilliam P. Johnson, Appellant. |
John A. Cirando, Syracuse, for appellant.
Mary E. Rain, District Attorney, Canton (Patricia C. Campbell, Syracuse, ofcounsel), for respondent.
Peters, P.J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County(Richards, J.), rendered February 15, 2013, which revoked defendant's probation andimposed a sentence of imprisonment.
In 2006, defendant entered a guilty plea to rape in the third degree, admitting that hesubjected a 15-year-old girl to sexual intercourse when he was 34 years old, and wassentenced to 180 days in jail with a concurrent 10-year term of probation with conditions.Subsequently, defendant was charged with violating the condition of probation that henot violate any laws based upon two arrests for harassment in August 2011 and January2013 and a third harassment incident in November 2012. Defendant thereafter pleadedguilty to violating probation related to the 2013 incident, and County Court revoked hisprobation and resentenced him, as agreed, to 1 to 4 years in prison. Defendant nowappeals.
We affirm. Defendant's contention that his admission to violating probation was notknowing, voluntary and intelligent was not raised in a postallocution motion to withdrawhis guilty plea and, thus, it is not preserved for our review (see People v McGregor, 119AD3d 1235, 1236 [2014]; People v Cogswell, 94 AD3d 1236, 1237 [2012], lvdenied 19 NY3d 958 [2012]). Moreover, the record reflects that defendantunderstood and accepted the plea terms and was advised of the rights that he wasforgoing, waived a violation hearing indicating that he had sufficient time to discuss thematter with counsel, and thereafter voluntarily admitted to violating his probation (see People v Hare, 110 AD3d1117, 1117 [2013]). Even assuming that one of [*2]defendant's responses to County Court's questions duringthe plea colloquy cast doubt on his guilt of engaging in harassing behavior so as toimplicate the exception to the preservation requirement, as he now argues, we find thatthe court's further inquiry before accepting defendant's admission ensured that his pleawas knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662,666-667 [1988]; People vPerez, 101 AD3d 1162, 1162 [2012]). Finally, given defendant's repeatedunwillingness to comply with the terms of his probation and his conduct in harassingyoung girls and being in the presence of children without supervision when such conductwas prohibited, we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warrantinga modification of the agreed-upon sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Colsten, 120AD3d 1508, 1508 [2014]; People v McGregor, 119 AD3d at 1236).
Lahtinen, McCarthy and Lynch, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.