Opinion
April 29, 2011.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Richard A. Keenan, J.), rendered December 20, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree.
Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Lindley, Green and Gorski, JJ.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05), defendant contends that his sentence is illegal because County Court imposed a five-year period of post-release supervision. The People correctly concede that, although defendant did not preserve his contention for our review, preservation is not required inasmuch as defendant challenges the legality of his sentence ( see People v Ramsey, 59 AD3d 1046, 1048, lv denied 12 NY3d 858; People v Fuentes, 52 AD3d 1297, 1300-1301, lv denied 11 NY3d 736; People v Fomby, 42 AD3d 894, 896). We nevertheless reject defendant's contention.
Defendant's plea of guilty to assault in the second degree, a class D violent felony, was in satisfaction of an indictment charging, inter alia, robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15) as an armed felony as defined in CPL 1.20 (41) (b). Consequently, defendant was sentenced pursuant to Penal Law § 70.02 (4). Inasmuch as none of the exceptions set forth in former section 70.45 (2) apply herein, the statute mandates the imposition of a five-year period of postrelease supervision ( see generally People v McCants, 54 AD3d 445; People v Hanley, 43 AD3d 487; People v McQuiller, 19 AD3d 1043, 1045, lv denied 5 NY3d 808).