From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Wachtel

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
May 8, 2014
984 N.Y.S.2d 699 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-05-8

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eugene WACHTEL, Appellant.

Bruce D. Lennard, Guilderland, for appellant. Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Gerald A. Dwyer of counsel), for respondent.



Bruce D. Lennard, Guilderland, for appellant. Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Gerald A. Dwyer of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., LAHTINEN, McCARTHY and GARRY, JJ.

PETERS, P.J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Drago, J.), entered March 15, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of grand larceny in the third degree.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the third degree and waived his right to appeal with the understanding that if he successfully completed a drug treatment program, he would receive a sentence of five years of probation. County Court warned defendant that, if he did not successfully complete the program, the court would impose a term of imprisonment. Defendant executed a written consent to these conditions, as well as others, during the plea proceedings. After defendant failed to report to the program to begin treatment, County Court found that he had violated the terms of the plea agreement and sentenced him to 2 1/3 to 7 years in prison. Defendant appeals, and we affirm.

To the extent that defendant challenges the propriety of the enhanced sentence, he did not object during sentencing and never moved to withdraw his plea on this ground. As such, he failed to preserve the issue for our review ( see People v. Gilbert, 106 A.D.3d 1133, 1133, 963 N.Y.S.2d 779 [2013];People v. DePalma, 99 A.D.3d 1116, 1117, 952 N.Y.S.2d 316 [2012],lv. denied20 N.Y.3d 1010, 960 N.Y.S.2d 353, 984 N.E.2d 328 [2013] ). Defendant's argument that County Court improperly failed to hold a hearing on the issue of whether he violated the conditions of his plea agreement is similarly unpreserved, as he neither requested such a hearing nor moved to withdraw his plea ( see People v. Coffey, 77 A.D.3d 1202, 1204, 910 N.Y.S.2d 206 [2010],lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 882, 939 N.Y.S.2d 752, 963 N.E.2d 129 [2012]; People v. Forkey, 72 A.D.3d 1209, 1210, 898 N.Y.S.2d 712 [2010];People v. Saucier, 69 A.D.3d 1125, 1125–1126, 892 N.Y.S.2d 684 [2010] ). In any event, defendant was provided an opportunity to be heard and admitted that he absconded from the drug treatment program ( see People v. Dissottle, 68 A.D.3d 1542, 1544, 893 N.Y.S.2d 649 [2009],lv. denied14 N.Y.3d 799, 899 N.Y.S.2d 133, 925 N.E.2d 937 [2010] ).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. LAHTINEN, McCARTHY and GARRY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Wachtel

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
May 8, 2014
984 N.Y.S.2d 699 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

People v. Wachtel

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eugene WACHTEL…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: May 8, 2014

Citations

984 N.Y.S.2d 699 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
117 A.D.3d 1203
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 3309

Citing Cases

People v. Waite

In this regard, although defendant now contends that County Court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry into…

People v. Lopez

Defendant now appeals, contending that the enhanced sentence imposed was harsh and excessive.Defendant…