| People v Ullah |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 05969 [130 AD3d 759] |
| July 8, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Rahim Ullah, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove,Solomon Neubort, and Gamaliel Marrero of counsel), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(D'Emic, J.), rendered November 8, 2012, convicting him of menacing a police officerand menacing in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and(2) a resentence of the same court imposed February 13, 2013.
Ordered that the judgment and the resentence are affirmed.
The defendant contends that his recitation of the facts underlying his plea of guilty tomenacing a police officer negated the intent element of that offense (Penal Law§ 120.18) and that the Supreme Court's further inquiry into the facts did notcure this defect. The defendant's contention is without merit, since, upon further inquiry,he admitted to waving a machete at a police officer, and his intent to place that policeofficer in "reasonable fear of physical injury" can readily be inferred from this conductand the surrounding circumstances (id.; see People v Roach, 119 AD3d 1070 [2014]; seegenerally People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296, 301 [1977]; People v Lovick, 127 AD3d1108 [2015]).
The defendant, who was initially given an illegal, indeterminate sentence and thenresentenced to a determinate term of imprisonment and a period of postreleasesupervision, contends that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent because hewas not advised at the time of the plea that his sentence would include a period ofpostrelease supervision. The defendant's contention is unpreserved for appellate reviewbecause the defendant was made aware that he would be subject to a period ofpostrelease supervision at the outset of the resentencing proceeding, and nonethelessfailed to move to withdraw his plea prior to the imposition of the resentence (see People v Crowder, 24NY3d 1134, 1136-1137 [2015]; People v Murray, 15 NY3d 725, 726-727 [2010]; People v Brown, 107 AD3d819 [2013]; People vBorges, 103 AD3d 747, 748 [2013]; People v Cohen, 82 AD3d 786 [2011]; see also People v Valerio, 110AD3d 1015 [2013]; cf.People v Turner, 24 NY3d 254, 258-259 [2014]; People v McAlpin, 17 NY3d936, 938 [2011]; People vLouree, 8 NY3d 541, 545-546 [2007]). Under the circumstances of this case, wedecline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Skelos,J.P., Dillon, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.