| People v Perkins |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 01241 [169 AD3d 936] |
| February 20, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Clifford Perkins, Appellant. |
Anthony M. Giordano, Ossining, NY, for appellant.
Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Christine DiSalvo and Steven A.Bender of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Robert A.Neary, J.), rendered October 14, 2016, convicting him of criminally negligent homicide, upon his pleaof guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant pleaded guilty in exchange for a promised sentence of six months of "shock"incarceration followed by five years of probation. At the plea proceeding, the defendant was advisedthat if he failed to appear for sentencing or was rearrested, he could receive an enhanced sentence. Thedefendant failed to appear on the scheduled sentencing date, and a bench warrant was issued for hisarrest. Following the defendant's violation of the plea agreement, the sentencing court imposed anenhanced sentence.
The defendant's contention that the County Court erred in imposing a sentence greater than thatwhich had been promised is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant neither objected to thesentence on that ground nor moved to vacate his plea (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Martin, 151 AD3d 753[2017]; People v Carrasquillo, 133AD3d 774, 775 [2015]; People vBrowning, 44 AD3d 1067 [2007]). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit,as the defendant was advised of the maximum sentence that could be imposed upon his failure tocomply with the conditions of his plea agreement (see People v Grant, 122 AD3d 767 [2014]; People v Browning,44 AD3d at 1067). Moreover, the defendant's waiver of the right to appeal, the validity of which thedefendant does not challenge, precludes appellate review of his contention that the enhanced sentencewas excessive (see People v Sanchez,122 AD3d 778, 779 [2014]). Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.