People v Medina

People v Medina 2015 NY Slip Op 05520 Decided on June 25, 2015 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: June 25, 2015
106463

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

v

JUAN MEDINA, Appellant.

Calendar Date: April 24, 2015
Before: Peters, P.J., Garry, Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ.

Brian M. Callahan, Schenectady, for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H. Willis of counsel), for respondent.

Egan Jr., J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Drago, J.), rendered November 14, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

In full satisfaction of a six-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and waived his right to appeal. Defendant thereafter was sentenced — consistent with the terms of the plea agreement — to a prison term of 5½ years followed by 3½ years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals, primarily contending that his plea was involuntary because he was not adequately apprised of the postrelease supervision (hereinafter PRS) component of his

sentence.

We affirm. Although defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea survives his uncontested waiver of the right to appeal, it is unpreserved for our review in the absence of an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v White, 119 AD3d 1286, 1287 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1222 [2015]). Contrary to defendant's assertion, County Court twice advised defendant — prior to accepting his plea — of the range of PRS to which he would be subject, reiterated this range again prior to imposing sentence and thereafter expressly referenced the PRS component of defendant's sentence at the time thereof, thereby triggering the preservation requirement (see People v Crowder, 24 NY3d 1134, 1136-1137 [2015]; People v Murray, 15 NY3d 725, 726-727 [2010]; People v White, 119 AD3d at 1287). Under these circumstances, the narrow exception [*2]to the preservation requirement set forth in People v Louree (8 NY3d 541, 545-546 [2007]) is inapplicable (see People v Davis, 114 AD3d 1166, 1166-1167 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1035 [2014]; compare People v Bolivar, 118 AD3d 91, 93-94 [2014]). Finally, to the extent that defendant contends that County Court's comments reflect that it relied upon inaccurate and/or unreliable information in imposing sentence, inasmuch as defendant's argument on this point "amounts to a challenge to the procedures utilized in determining his sentence and does not implicate the legality of the sentence or the power of the court to impose it, defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal precludes our review of such claim" (People v Smith, 119 AD3d 1088, 1089 [2014], lvs denied 24 NY3d 1084, 1089 [2014]).

Peters, P.J., Garry and Lynch, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.