| People v White |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 06108 [153 AD3d 1044] |
| August 10, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v DanteWhite, Appellant. |
Susan Patnode, Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Cynthia Feathers of counsel), forappellant, and appellant pro se.
James M. Carusone, District Attorney, Lake George (Emilee B. Davenport of counsel), forrespondent.
Garry, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County (Hall Jr., J.),rendered May 12, 2015, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery inthe second degree.
Defendant was indicted and charged with burglary in the first degree, robbery in the firstdegree, robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Insatisfaction of the charges, defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree pursuant to anegotiated plea agreement that contemplated a sentence of 10 years in prison followed by fiveyears of postrelease supervision. County Court advised defendant that he must cooperate with theProbation Department in its preparation of a presentence report and that otherwise the courtwould not honor the sentencing agreement. At the time of sentencing, County Court found, aftera hearing, that defendant had failed to cooperate with the Probation Department during itspresentence investigation and, as a result, sentenced defendant to an enhanced prison term of 14years. Defendant appeals, and we affirm.
Initially, we reject defendant's contention that his guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarilyand intelligently entered. The record reflects that County Court afforded defendant ampleopportunity to discuss the plea with counsel, and explained to defendant the trial-related [*2]rights that he was foregoing by pleading guilty, as well as theconsequences of the plea; defendant accepted the plea terms and freely admitted to the conductunderlying the charge (see People vDaniels, 139 AD3d 1256, 1257 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1183 [2017]; People v Taylor, 135 AD3d 1237,1237 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1075 [2016]). Defendant's claim that his guilty plea wascoerced is belied by the record, as the court repeatedly advised defendant that he had the right toa jury trial and did not have to plead guilty, and the court's statements advising defendant of hismaximum sentence exposure were not coercive (see People v Lobaton, 140 AD3d 1534, 1535 [2016], lvdenied 28 NY3d 972 [2016]; Peoplev Lamont, 125 AD3d 1106, 1106 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 969 [2015]).Further, defendant assured the court that he had not been threatened or coerced into pleadingguilty (see People v Gasparro, 139AD3d 1247, 1248 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 929 [2016]; People v Taylor,135 AD3d at 1237). In addition, we are not persuaded by defendant's contention that hisstatements during the plea allocution negated a material element of the crime or otherwise castdoubt upon his guilt.
We also reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in imposing an enhancedsentence, as defendant refused to cooperate during the presentence investigation despite havingbeen expressly advised that his failure to do so could result in an enhanced sentence (see People v Garrow, 147 AD3d1160, 1162 [2017]; People vTerrell, 41 AD3d 1044, 1045 [2007]). Finally, in view of the violent nature of thecharged conduct, defendant's lengthy criminal history and his lack of remorse, we find noextraordinary circumstances or abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of defendant'ssentence, which was less than the statutory maximum (see Penal Law§§ 70.06 [3] [c]; 160.10 [1]; People v Lord, 128 AD3d 1277, 1279 [2015]; People v Paneto, 112 AD3d 1230,1231 [2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 1023 [2014]).
Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Rose and Mulvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.