Court Opinion

ID: 9364251
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-18 19:05:35.523252+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:36.821072
License: Public Domain

People v Whitted (2023 NY Slip Op 00221)

People v Whitted

2023 NY Slip Op 00221

Decided on January 18, 2023

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 18, 2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

BETSY BARROS, J.P.
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
DEBORAH A. DOWLING
HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ.

2017-10127
 (Ind. No. 35/17)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,
vDavid A. Whitted, appellant.

Del Atwell, East Hampton, NY, for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Edward T. McLoughlin, J.), rendered August 7, 2017, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention, in effect, that the County Court failed to comply with CPL 400.21 before he was sentenced as a second felony drug offender is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Proctor, 79 NY2d 992; People v Santos, 199 AD3d 717, 719; People v Carpenter, 52 AD3d 729, 730). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit, as the statutory purposes of CPL 400.21 were met and the court substantially complied with the statute (see People v Bouyea, 64 NY2d 1140, 1142; People v Cobb, 145 AD3d 738, 739). The court provided the defendant with notice of the predicate felony statement and an opportunity to be heard prior to sentencing. Furthermore, the defendant admitted to the allegations in the predicate felony statement, and there is no indication that the defendant contemplated a challenge to the constitutionality of his prior conviction (see People v Smothers, 175 AD3d 1441, 1442; People v Rodriguez, 142 AD3d 1189, 1190).
BARROS, J.P., MALTESE, DOWLING and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Maria T. Fasulo
Clerk of the Court