PEOPLE v. ROOTS (2008)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [4] ).   Contrary to the contention of defendant, the certificate of conviction accurately reflects that his plea of guilty satisfied all 11 counts of the indictment.   We note, however, that the sentence and commitment incorrectly reflects that defendant pleaded guilty to count two of the indictment, and it should therefore be amended to reflect that he pleaded guilty to count three (see generally People v. Martinez, 37 A.D.3d 1099, 828 N.Y.S.2d 828, lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 947, 836 N.Y.S.2d 558, 868 N.E.2d 241).   The contention of defendant that County Court improperly relied on the “pre-plea/ presentence” report in fixing the amount of restitution is not preserved for our review inasmuch as he neither requested a restitution hearing nor objected to the amount of restitution ordered (see People v. Peck, 31 A.D.3d 1216, 817 N.Y.S.2d 845, lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 992, 848 N.Y.S.2d 610, 878 N.E.2d 1026;  People v. Bland, 27 A.D.3d 1052, 810 N.Y.S.2d 718, lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 892, 817 N.Y.S.2d 627, 850 N.E.2d 674;  People v. Collins, 302 A.D.2d 958, 754 N.Y.S.2d 613, lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 653, 760 N.Y.S.2d 117, 790 N.E.2d 291), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6] [a] ).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: