Calendar Date: November 17, 2017
Scott Walling, Slingerlands, for appellant.
E. Abelove, District Attorney, Troy (Vincent J. O'Neill
of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Clark and Rumsey, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
from a judgment of the County Court of Rensselaer County
(Ceresia, J.), rendered September 26, 2014, convicting
defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted
criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
2013, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, and in full
satisfaction of a six-count indictment, defendant pleaded
guilty to attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance
in the third degree and executed a written waiver of appeal
in open court. Under the terms of the plea agreement,
defendant was to be sentenced as a predicate felon to
3½ years in prison to be followed by three years of
postrelease supervision. In addition, County Court expressly
advised defendant that it would not be bound by the
sentencing commitment if he failed to cooperate with certain
conditions that he was required to abide by. Defendant
indicated that he understood, and he executed a written
Parker admonishment in open court to that effect
(see People v Parker, 57 N.Y.2d 136, 141 ).
When defendant failed to report to the Rensselaer County
Department of Probation and appear for sentencing, a bench
warrant was issued for his arrest. Defendant was returned to
custody,  and County Court ultimately found that
defendant violated the terms of his release and thereafter
sentenced him, as a predicate felon, to 5½ years in
prison to be followed by three years of postrelease
supervision. Defendant appeals.
affirm. Although defendant contends that County Court erred
in imposing an enhanced sentence because it failed to
adequately inform him prior to his guilty plea of the
conditions that he was required to abide by or of the
consequences for violating those conditions, the record
belies defendant's claim. During the plea proceedings,
defendant executed a written Parker admonishment in
open court, and County Court specifically advised defendant
that the court would not be bound by the sentencing
commitment if he were to be re-arrested, fail to cooperate
with the Probation Department or fail to appear for
sentencing, and defendant expressly acknowledged his
understanding of these conditions. County Court also asked
defendant at sentencing whether he wanted to withdraw his
plea based upon the potential imposition of an enhanced
sentence, and defendant indicated that he did not wish to
withdraw his plea and that he wanted to proceed to sentencing
(see People v DePalma, 99 A.D.3d 1116, 1117 ,
lv denied 20 N.Y.3d 1010');">20 N.Y.3d 1010 ; People v
Haynes, 14 A.D.3d 789, 790-791 , lv
denied 4 N.Y.3d 831');">4 N.Y.3d 831 ). Moreover, inasmuch as
defendant, after being given an opportunity to be heard, did
not dispute his noncompliance with each of these conditions
or tender a valid excuse for failing to abide by the
conditions of his release, we find that the imposition of the
enhanced sentence was justified (see People v Smith,
123 A.D.3d 1375, 1376 , lv denied 26 N.Y.3d
935 ; People v Coffey, 77 A.D.3d 1202,
1203-1204 , lv denied 18 N.Y.3d 882');">18 N.Y.3d 882 ;
People v McGourty, 54 A.D.3d 440, 440 , lv
denied 11 N.Y.3d 927');">11 N.Y.3d 927 ; People v Black, 14
A.D.3d 734, 735-736 , lv denied 4 N.Y.3d 796');">4 N.Y.3d 796
Peters, P.J., Lynch, Clark and Rumsey, JJ., concur.
that the judgment is affirmed.
 At the time that defendant was returned to
custody on the bench warrant, the People informed County
Court that defendant had also been arraigned in June 2014 on
charges of identity theft in the first degree, forgery in the
second degree and offering a false instrument for filing in
the first degree, all of which stemmed from an incident in
which defendant submitted a false application to ...