| People v Bushey |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 05095 [186 AD3d 1835] |
| September 24, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Anthony Bushey, Appellant. |
G. Scott Walling, Slingerlands, for appellant.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York City (Hannah Stith Long of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.), renderedMarch 8, 2018, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possessionof a controlled substance in the fourth degree.
In connection with an 86-count indictment against multiple codefendants related to drugtrafficking, defendant was charged with conspiracy in the second degree and several drug-relatedcrimes. In satisfaction of all charges, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of acontrolled substance in the fourth degree under count 60 of the indictment and executed a waiverof appeal, in exchange for a prison sentence of four years to be followed by two years ofpostrelease supervision. At sentencing, County Court determined that defendant had violated hisplea agreement and imposed an enhanced prison sentence of five years with two years ofpostrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.
We affirm. Defendant argues that County Court abused its discretion in imposing anenhanced sentence without conducting a sufficient inquiry into his postplea conduct. Atsentencing, the court indicated that it had received documents from the jail reflecting thatdefendant had violated jail rules by damaging a facility tablet, and the court found that it was nolonger bound to impose the promised sentence. When provided an opportunity to address thecourt, defendant did not deny the postplea conduct, object to the court's violation finding, requesta hearing or further inquiry to contest the jail charges or move to withdraw his guilty plea. Thus,defendant's claim is unpreserved (seePeople v Adams, 165 AD3d 1343, 1345 [2018]; People v Smith, 162 AD3d 1408, 1409 [2018]; cf. People vOutley, 80 NY2d 702, 707, 713 [1993]; People v Blanford, 179 AD3d 1388, 1392-1393 [2020], lvdenied 35 NY3d 968 [2020]).
Moreover, defendant waived any challenge to the enhanced sentence in exchange for thepromise that it would satisfy the charges related to the jail misconduct (see People v Derrig, 175 AD3d1675, 1675-1676 [2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 1127 [2020]; People v Slamp, 145 AD3d 1320,1321 [2016]). Given the foregoing, defendant's claim that the enhanced sentence is harsh andexcessive is precluded by his unchallenged oral and written waiver of appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248,256 [2006]; People v Adams, 153AD3d 1449, 1451 [2017]).
Garry, P.J., Lynch, Mulvey, Aarons and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ., concur. Ordered that thejudgment is affirmed.