People v Medina

2015 NY Slip Op 05520 [129 AD3d 1385]

June 25, 2015

Appellate Division, Third Department

As corrected through Wednesday, August 5, 2015

[*1]

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vJuan Medina, Appellant.

Brian M. Callahan, Schenectady, for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H. Willis of counsel), forrespondent.

Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County(Drago, J.), rendered November 14, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty ofthe crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

In full satisfaction of a six-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to criminalpossession of a weapon in the second degree and waived his right to appeal. Defendantthereafter was sentenced—consistent with the terms of the pleaagreement—to a prison term of 51/2 years followed by31/2 years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals, primarilycontending that his plea was involuntary because he was not adequately apprised of thepostrelease supervision (hereinafter PRS) component of his sentence.

We affirm. Although defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea surviveshis uncontested waiver of the right to appeal, it is unpreserved for our review in theabsence of an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v White, 119 AD3d 1286, 1287 [2014], lvdenied 24 NY3d 1222 [2015]). Contrary to defendant's assertion, County Courttwice advised defendant—prior to accepting his plea—of the range of PRSto which he would be subject, reiterated this range again prior to imposing sentence andthereafter expressly referenced the PRS component of defendant's sentence at the timethereof, thereby triggering the preservation requirement (see People v Crowder, 24NY3d 1134, 1136-1137 [2015]; People v Murray, 15 NY3d 725, 726-727 [2010];People v White, 119 AD3d at 1287). Under these circumstances, the narrowexception [*2]to the preservation requirement set forth inPeople v Louree (8 NY3d541, 545-546 [2007]) is inapplicable (see People v Davis, 114 AD3d 1166, 1166-1167 [2014],lv denied 23 NY3d 1035 [2014]; compare People v Bolivar, 118 AD3d 91, 93-94 [2014]).Finally, to the extent that defendant contends that County Court's comments reflect that itrelied upon inaccurate and/or unreliable information in imposing sentence, inasmuch asdefendant's argument on this point "amounts to a challenge to the procedures utilized indetermining his sentence and does not implicate the legality of the sentence or the powerof the court to impose it, defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal precludes ourreview of such claim" (People vSmith, 119 AD3d 1088, 1089 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1089[2014]).

Peters, P.J., Garry and Lynch, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.