Opinion
February 5, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Linakis, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant argues that evidence was seized unlawfully. We disagree and find that the police officer's stop of the defendant's vehicle was not improper, given his violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1202 [a] [1] [a]; People v Ellis, 62 N.Y.2d 393; see also, People v Harvey, 146 A.D.2d 585). We further find that the action of the police officer in shining a flashlight into the interior of the vehicle did not constitute an unreasonable intrusion (see, People v Price, 54 N.Y.2d 557). Moreover, since the evidence was visible from the exterior of the vehicle, suppression is not warranted (see, People v Allah, 131 A.D.2d 765).
We further hold that the defendant was properly sentenced as a second felony offender since at the time of his sentencing he had been previously convicted in this State of a felony for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment in excess of one year was authorized and that prior conviction had not been imposed more than 10 years before the commission of the felony of which he now stands convicted (Penal Law § 70.06 [b]).
By pleading guilty to criminal mischief in the fourth degree, the defendant has forfeited his right to claim that he was denied his statutory right to a speedy trial (see, CPL 30.30; People v Suarez, 55 N.Y.2d 940; see also, People v Ervin, 125 A.D.2d 406). Moreover, since this claim had not been advanced in the Supreme Court, it is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Jordan, 62 N.Y.2d 825; see also, People v Hawkins, 147 A.D.2d 587). Mollen, P.J., Lawrence, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.