| People v Williams |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 04834 [140 AD3d 1749] |
| June 17, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Cammesoa M. Williams, Appellant. |
David J. Farrugia, Public Defender, Lockport (Joseph G. Frazier of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.
Niagara County District Attorney's Office, Lockport (Laura T. Bittner of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Matthew J. Murphy, III, J.),rendered December 10, 2014. The judgment revoked defendant's sentence of probationand imposed a sentence of imprisonment.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimouslyaffirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking the sentence ofprobation previously imposed upon her conviction of attempted criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.03 [3]) andimposing a determinate term of imprisonment, followed by a period of postreleasesupervision. Defendant failed to preserve for our review her contention that heradmission to the probation violations was not voluntary inasmuch as she failed "to moveto withdraw [her] admission . . . or to vacate the judgment revoking thesentence of probation on that ground" (People v Rodriguez, 74 AD3d 1858, 1859 [2010], lvdenied 15 NY3d 809 [2010]; see People v Carlisle, 120 AD3d 1607, 1607 [2014], lvdenied 24 NY3d 1082 [2014]; see generally People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662,665-666 [1988]). This case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservationdoctrine (see Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666), and we decline to exercise our power toreview defendant's contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice(see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).
Contrary to defendant's further contention, in light of her numerous admittedviolations, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in revoking thesentence of probation and imposing a term of imprisonment followed by a period ofpostrelease supervision (see e.g.People v White, 75 AD3d 1003, 1003-1004 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d956 [2010]). Although we agree with defendant that her waiver of the right to appealencompasses the sentence of probation but does not encompass her challenge to thesentence imposed following her violations of probation (see People v Johnson, 77AD3d 1441, 1442 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 953 [2010]; People v Dexter, 71 AD3d1504, 1504-1505 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 887 [2010]), we neverthelessreject her contention that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe. We perceive no basisupon which to modify the sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice(see CPL 470.15 [6] [b]; see generally People v Handley, 134 AD3d 1509, 1510[2015]). Present—Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, DeJoseph and NeMoyer,JJ.