| People v Melton |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 00716 [136 AD3d 1069] |
| February 4, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1](February 4, 2016)
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jameel C. Melton, Appellant. |
John R. Trice, Elmira, for appellant.
Gwen Wilkinson, District Attorney, Ithaca (Andrew J. Bonavia of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tompkins County (Rossiter, J.),rendered July 19, 2013, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of robbery inthe second degree (two counts), criminal use of a firearm in the second degree,conspiracy in the fourth degree and petit larceny.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of robbery in the second degree (twocounts), criminal use of a firearm in the second degree, conspiracy in the fourth degreeand petit larceny. Pursuant to a predicate felony statement filed by the prosecution,County Court sentenced defendant as a second felony offender and imposed concurrentprison terms of eight years followed by five years of postrelease supervision on each ofthe robbery convictions and the criminal use of a firearm conviction, 1
Defendant's contention that he was improperly sentenced as a second felony offenderdue to County Court's failure to comply with the provision of CPL 400.21 (3) requiringan inquiry as to whether defendant wanted to controvert any of the allegations in thepredicate felony statement is unpreserved for our review given the lack of an objectionby defendant at sentencing (seePeople v Dixon, 118 AD3d 1188, 1189 [2014]). In any event, "County Courtwas not obligated to expressly advise defendant of his right to contest theconstitutionality of the prior conviction" (id. at 1189 [internal quotation marksand citations omitted]). Moreover, the record reflects that defendant was provided with acopy of the predicate felony statement, was given an opportunity to be heard andacknowledged that he understood his status as a predicate felon for sentencing purposes.Under these circumstances, we find that there was substantial compliance with the statute(see People v Wood, 108AD3d 932, 933 [2013]). With respect to defendant's contention that the sentence isharsh and excessive, we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstanceswarranting a modification of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Castellano, 100AD3d 1256, 1258 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1096 [2013]; People [*2]v Holman, 53 AD3d 775, 776 [2008]).
Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Garry and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.