Majority
Defendant was charged in a 12-count indictment with burglary in the second degree (nine counts), attempted burglary in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (two counts). He subsequently entered a plea of guilty to the entire indictment and waived his right to appeal all issues except as to the sentence to be imposed by County Court. Thereafter, defendant was sentenced to an aggregate prison sentence of 14 years, plus five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
Because defendant has not moved to withdraw his guilty plea or sought to vacate the judgment of conviction, he has not preserved for our review his claim that his plea was not volun
Defendant also claims that he has been denied both his statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial. Defendant forfeited his CPL 30.30 statutory claim by pleading guilty (see People v Dalton, 69 AD3d 1235 , 1235 [2010]; People v Zakrzewski, 69 AD3d 1055 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 758 [2010]). As for his constitutional claim, while it survives his guilty plea and appeal waiver (see People v McCorkle, 67 AD3d 1249 , 1250 [2009]; People v King, 62 AD3d 1162 , 1163 [2009]), no such argument was raised before County Court and, therefore, the issue is unpreserved for our review (see People v Smith, 66 AD3d 1223 , 1225 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 773 [2010]; People v Salaam, 36 AD3d 969 , 970 [2007]). We also note that when defendant entered his guilty plea, he signed a written statement acknowledging that he had waived his right to a speedy trial, and his counsel stated that no claim would be made that defendant was prejudiced by the length of time it took to complete this prosecution.
Finally, defendant’s sentence, in our view, was not harsh or excessive. By pleading guilty to these charges, defendant admitted to burglarizing at least nine separate residences over a four-month period of time, and attempting to break into another. The sentence imposed by County Court, an aggregate of 14 years, falls far short of the maximum, and the record reveals no abuse of discretion or any extraordinary circumstances that would warrant its modification (see People v Merchant, 79 AD3d 1526 , 1527 [2010]).
Mercure, A.PJ., Peters, Malone Jr. and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Cases cited
- People v. Robinson 86 AD3d 719 at 720 p. 1247
- People v. Planty 85 AD3d 1317 at 1318 p. 1247
- People v. Benson 87 AD3d 1228 at 1228 p. 1247
- People v. Glynn 73 AD3d 1290 at 1291 p. 1247
- People v. Dalton 69 AD3d 1235 at 1235 p. 1247
- People v. McCorkle 67 AD3d 1249 at 1250 p. 1247
- People v. King 62 AD3d 1162 at 1163 p. 1247
- People v. Smith 66 AD3d 1223 at 1225 p. 1247
- People v. Salaam 36 AD3d 969 at 970 p. 1247
- People v. Merchant 79 AD3d 1526 at 1527 p. 1247