SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

831 

KA 10-02153 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WILLIAM F. CAREY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

CHARLES A. MARANGOLA, MORAVIA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

JON E. BUDELMANN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (BRIAN N. BAUERSFELD OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Mark H.

Fandrich, A.J.), rendered October 19, 2010. The judgment revoked

defendant’s sentence of shock probation and imposed a sentence of

imprisonment. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant was convicted upon a plea of guilty of,

inter alia, driving while intoxicated as a class E felony (Vehicle and

Traffic Law § 1192 [3]; § 1193 [1] [c] [former (i)]) and was sentenced

to a term of shock probation. He subsequently admitted that he

violated a condition of probation and now appeals from a judgment

revoking his sentence of shock probation and imposing a sentence of

imprisonment. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his

contention that County Court erred in failing to order an updated

presentence report before sentencing him following the revocation of

probation (see People v Obbagy, 56 AD3d 1223, lv denied 11 NY3d 928;

People v Pomales, 37 AD3d 1098, lv denied 8 NY3d 949). In any event,

that contention lacks merit. The declaration of delinquency and

uniform court report “ ‘constituted the functional equivalent of an

updated [presentence] report’ ” (People v Fairman, 38 AD3d 1346, 1347,

lv denied 9 NY3d 865; see People v Somers, 280 AD2d 925, lv denied 96

NY2d 806). Moreover, the same judge presided over both the original

proceedings and the revocation proceedings, and thus “[t]he court was

‘fully familiar with any changes in defendant’s status, conduct or

condition’ since the original sentencing” (People v Howard, 254 AD2d

701, lv denied 93 NY2d 853; see People v Perry, 278 AD2d 933, lv

denied 96 NY2d 866; cf. People v Klinkowski, 281 AD2d 972, lv

denied 96 NY2d 831).

Defendant further contends that the court should have permitted

him to withdraw his admission to the violation of probation because
-2- 831 

KA 10-02153 

the court never informed him that the sentence of imprisonment was an

agreed-upon sentence and there is no indication in the record that

defense counsel informed him of the terms of the agreement. To the

extent that defendant’s contention may be construed as a contention

that his admission was not knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently

entered, that contention is not preserved for our review and does not

fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement (see

People v Springstead, 57 AD3d 1397, 1398, lv denied 12 NY3d 788;

People v Barra, 45 AD3d 1393, 1393-1394, lv denied 10 NY3d 761; see

generally People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666). Insofar as defendant

contends that defense counsel failed to inform him of the terms of the

agreement, that contention is based on material outside the record and

thus must be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL article 440

(see People v Shorter, 305 AD2d 1070, 1071, lv denied 100 NY2d 566). 

Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: July 1, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court