| People v Jenkins |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 07146 [165 AD3d 1167] |
| October 24, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Dontan Jenkins, Appellant. |
Scott M. Bishop, White Plains, NY, for appellant.
Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Brian R. Pouliot and WilliamC. Milaccio of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Barry E.Warhit, J.), rendered October 1, 2015, convicting him of murder in the second degree andcriminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant pleaded guilty to murder in the second degree and criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree. At the plea hearing, the County Court did not inform the defendantthat the sentence for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree would include amandatory term of postrelease supervision. At a subsequent sentencing hearing, the courtsentenced the defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 17 years to life for murderin the second degree, and a concurrent determinate term of imprisonment of 15 years for criminalpossession of a weapon in the second degree to be followed by a five-year term of postreleasesupervision. The defendant appeals. We affirm.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that he knowingly,voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 341-342 [2015]; People v Bryant, 159 AD3d 715,716 [2018]).
Since the County Court failed to inform the defendant that his sentence for criminalpossession of a weapon in the second degree would include a term of postrelease supervision, hisclaim that the plea was therefore not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent survives his validwaiver of the right to appeal (see Peoplev Burns, 70 AD3d 1301, 1301-1302 [2010]). Here, the imposition of postreleasesupervision was duplicative of the lifetime parole supervision that the defendant was subject to aspart of his sentence for murder in the second degree (see People v Rivera, 148 AD3d 1672 [2017]; People v Haynes, 14 AD3d 789,791 [2005]). Under these circumstances, the court's failure to inform the defendant of thepostrelease supervision component of his sentence for criminal possession of a weapon in thesecond degree did not deprive the defendant of the benefit of his plea agreement (see People v Rivera, 148 AD3d1672 [2017]; People v Blunt,93 AD3d 675, 675-676 [2012]; People [*2]v Haynes, 14 AD3d 789,791 [2005]).
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligentsurvives his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Bryant, 159 AD3d at 716).However, the defendant failed to preserve this contention for appellate review, since he did notmove to withdraw his plea on this ground prior to the imposition of the sentence (see People v McClenic, 155 AD3d1064, 1064 [2017]). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P.,Miller, Barros and Connolly, JJ., concur.