| People v Woodard |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 03905 [139 AD3d 1238] |
| May 19, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vCody J. Woodard, Appellant. |
John A. Cirando, Syracuse, for appellant.
Craig P. Carriero, District Attorney, Malone (Jennifer M. Hollis of counsel), forrespondent.
Clark, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main Jr.,J.), rendered October 31, 2013, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed asentence of imprisonment.
Defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the third degree and was sentenced to afive-year term of probation in March 2013. In August 2013, he pleaded guilty toviolating various conditions of his probation. Resentencing was adjourned until October2013 and defendant was released under the supervision of the Probation Department.Prior to the adjourned resentencing date, defendant was arrested and charged with assaultin the third degree and endangering the welfare of a child. County Court thereafterrevoked defendant's probation and resentenced him on the burglary conviction to aprison term of 2 to 6 years. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Initially, the People concede and we agree that defendant did not validlywaive his right to appeal with respect to his resentence. Defendant's challenge to thevoluntariness of his guilty plea to the probation violations is, however, unpreserved forour review as the record fails to disclose that he made an appropriate postallocutionmotion (see People vMcGregor, 119 AD3d 1235, 1236 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 991[2015]; People v Secore,102 AD3d 1057, 1058 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1019 [2013]; People vBanks, 305 AD2d 812, 812 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 578 [2003]).Moreover, the exception to the preservation rule is not applicable here, as defendantmade no statements during the plea colloquy that were inconsistent with his guilt or castdoubt upon the voluntariness of his plea (see [*2]People v Skidds, 123AD3d 1342, 1342-1343 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 992 [2015]; People v Lewis, 69 AD3d1232, 1234 [2010]). Finally, we reject defendant's contention that the resentence isharsh and excessive. Given defendant's history of being unable to comply with theconditions of his probation, both in connection with this burglary conviction and whenhe was previously on probation, we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinarycircumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Coupe, 124 AD3d1141, 1143 [2015]; Peoplev Pixley, 117 AD3d 1102, 1103 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1087[2014]).
Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Devine and Mulvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that thejudgment is affirmed.