| People v Laurendi |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 02351 [126 AD3d 1401] |
| March 20, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vPeter M. Laurendi, Appellant. |
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Timothy P. Murphy of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.
Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Ashley R. Small of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Christopher J. Burns,J.), rendered October 9, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea ofguilty, of driving while intoxicated, a class E felony.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimouslyaffirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty ofdriving while intoxicated as a class E felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law§§ 1192 [3]; 1193 [1] [c] [i]), defendant contends that Supreme Courterred in enhancing his sentence without affording him the opportunity to withdraw hisplea (see generally People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 712-713 [1993], certdenied 519 US 964 [1996]). Defendant failed to preserve that contention for ourreview, however, because "he failed to object to the alleged enhanced sentence and didnot move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground"(People v Epps, 109 AD3d1104, 1105 [2013]; seePeople v Wachtel, 117 AD3d 1203, 1203 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d1044 [2014]). Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that thecourt failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry into his violation of the conditions of the pleaagreement before imposing an enhanced sentence (see People v Hassett, 119 AD3d 1443, 1444 [2014], lvdenied 24 NY3d 961 [2014]; People v Anderson, 99 AD3d 1239, 1239 [2012], lvdenied 20 NY3d 1059 [2013]). We decline to exercise our power to review thosecontentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3][c]).
To the extent that defendant's contention that he was denied effective assistance ofcounsel at sentencing survives his guilty plea, we conclude that it lacks merit (see People v LaCroce, 83AD3d 1388, 1388 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 807 [2011]). Defendant"receive[d] an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparenteffectiveness of counsel" (People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). Thesentence, as imposed, is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith,Carni, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.