PEOPLE v. PERRY (2005)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered February 23, 2001, convicting him of attempted grand larceny in the third degree, criminal mischief in the third degree, possession of burglar's tools, and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant's constitutional challenge to his adjudication as a persistent felony offender is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit (see People v. Rosen, 96 N.Y.2d 329, 335, 728 N.Y.S.2d 407, 752 N.E.2d 844, cert. denied 534 U.S. 899, 122 S.Ct. 224, 151 L.Ed.2d 160;  People v. Besser, 96 N.Y.2d 136, 148, 726 N.Y.S.2d 48, 749 N.E.2d 727;  People v. West, 12 A.D.3d 152, 783 N.Y.S.2d 473, affd. 5 N.Y.3d 740, 800 N.Y.S.2d 369, 833 N.E.2d 704, 2005 WL 1397047 [June 14, 2005];  People v. Norris, 5 A.D.3d 796, 797, 773 N.Y.S.2d 591;  People v. Rivera, 2 A.D.3d 543, 767 N.Y.S.2d 880, affd. 5 N.Y.3d 61, 800 N.Y.S.2d 51, 833 N.E.2d 194, 2005 WL 1362184 [June 9, 2005];  People v. Grigg, 299 A.D.2d 367, 749 N.Y.S.2d 159;  People v. McKenzie, 298 A.D.2d 409, 751 N.Y.S.2d 384).

 The record indicates that the Supreme Court fully complied with the procedural mandates of CPL 400.20 in holding a persistent felony offender hearing, and providently exercised its discretion in sentencing the defendant as a persistent felony offender (see Penal Law § 70.10[2];  CPL 400.20[1];  People v. Maraia, 292 A.D.2d 635, 636, 739 N.Y.S.2d 602;  People v. Page, 265 A.D.2d 580, 696 N.Y.S.2d 883;  People v. Tuzzio, 261 A.D.2d 644, 688 N.Y.S.2d 913).   The Supreme Court's conclusion that the nature of the defendant's criminal conduct, his history, and his character warranted extended incarceration and lifetime supervision is amply supported by the record (see People v. Maraia, supra;  People v. Thomas, 255 A.D.2d 468, 682 N.Y.S.2d 51;  People v. Hoover, 251 A.D.2d 348, 672 N.Y.S.2d 810).

 The defendant's remaining contention that the prosecution presented false testimony to the Grand Jury, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, is not reviewable since this appeal is from the ensuing judgment of conviction which was based upon legally sufficient trial evidence (see CPL 210.30[6];  People v. Bryant, 234 A.D.2d 605, 652 N.Y.S.2d 300).