| People v Bracy |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 06514 [131 AD3d 538] |
| August 12, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Laikuan Bracy, Appellant. |
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Desiree Sheridan of counsel), forappellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Johnnette Traill, Ellen C. Abbot, and Tina Grillo of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Hirsch, J.), rendered March 26, 2010, convicting him of robbery in the third degree andpetit larceny, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
While the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right toappeal (see People v Lopez,6 NY3d 248 [2006]), that waiver does not preclude appellate review of his currentclaim that he was denied due process at sentencing when the Supreme Court determinedthat his postplea arrest for an unrelated matter violated a condition of his plea agreement(see People v Youmans, 106AD3d 1036 [2013]; Peoplev Arrington, 94 AD3d 903 [2012]).
However, to the extent that the defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred infailing to hold a hearing to explore the legitimacy of the basis for his new arrest, thecontention is unpreserved for appellate review, as he never requested such a hearing (see People v Cousar, 128AD3d 716 [2015]; People vStafford, 115 AD3d 683 [2014]; People v Bradshaw, 105 AD3d 758 [2013]; People v Kitchens, 46 AD3d577 [2007]). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit, as no formalhearing was required, and the court conducted a sufficient inquiry and properly relied onthe indictment of the defendant on the new charges in determining the legitimacy of thearrest (see People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 712-714 [1993]; People v Ricketts, 27 AD3d488 [2006]; People v Coleman, 266 AD2d 227 [1999]; People vYancey, 247 AD2d 561 [1998]; People v Ruffin, 208 AD2d 657 [1994]). Inthis regard, although the defendant was afforded ample opportunity to address thevalidity of the basis for the new arrest, he presented nothing but vague, conclusory, andspeculative assertions concerning the new charges. Similarly, the court was not requiredto postpone sentencing indefinitely to await the resolution of the defendant's new charges(see generally People v Yancey, 247 AD2d 561 [1998]). Since the recordsupports the court's conclusion that the defendant's new arrest constituted a violation of acondition of the plea agreement, the imposition of the challenged sentence wasappropriate (see People v Cousar, 128 AD3d at 716-717; People v Youmans, 106 AD3d1036 [2013]; People vArrington, 94 AD3d 903 [2012]; People v Kitchens, 46 AD3d 577 [2007]). Mastro, J.P.,Leventhal, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.