SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
May 20, 2011
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
MARK C. CHANDLER,
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Martin J. Massell, J.), rendered on October 6, 2008.
People v Chandler (Mark)
2011 NY Slip Op 50931(U)
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
Decided on May 20, 2011
PRESENT: NICOLAI, P.J., MOLIA and IANNACCI, JJ
The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of forcible touching.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of forcible touching (Penal Law § 130.52), and the District Court sentenced defendant to 30 days' incarceration and six years' probation with sex offender conditions. The court also imposed, among other things, a $1,000 supplemental sex offender victim fee at sentencing (Penal Law § 60.35  [b]).
Defendant's contention that the imposition of the supplemental sex offender victim fee was illegal is not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 ). While a challenge to an illegal sentence falls within the narrow exception to the preservation rule (see People v Samms, 95 NY2d 53 ), the imposition of this fee is not a component of the sentence (see People v Hoti, 12 NY3d 742, 743 ; People v Guerrero, 12 NY3d 45, 48-50 ). Therefore, defendant's claim does not fall under this narrow exception to the preservation rule, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.
To the extent that defendant, in effect, is seeking to have the judgment of conviction reversed and his guilty plea vacated on the ground that he was not advised of the imposition of the supplemental sex offender victim fee, this issue is also unpreserved for our review since defendant did not move to vacate the plea (CPL 220.60 ; see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 ) or the judgment (CPL 440.10; see Lopez, 71 NY2d at 665). The District Court's failure to pronounce the imposition of the fee prior to entry of the plea did not deprive defendant of the opportunity to knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently choose among alternative courses of action (see Hoti at 743).
Defendant's remaining contention is also not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 ), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Nicolai, P.J., Molia and Iannacci, JJ., concur. Decision
Date: May 20, 2011
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.