PEOPLE v. ALONZO (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Hyun Chin Kim, J.), rendered February 24, 2025, convicting him of rape in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the County Court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence without holding a “sufficient” hearing is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant neither requested a hearing or that any additional inquiry be conducted nor moved to withdraw his plea on this ground (see People v. Durkin, 214 A.D.3d 741, 742, 183 N.Y.S.3d 319;  People v. Shealy, 195 A.D.3d 1047, 1048, 146 N.Y.S.3d 797).  In any event, “[a]n enhanced sentence may be imposed on a defendant who, in violation of an express condition of a plea agreement, has failed to truthfully answer questions during a probation department interview” (People v. Guzman–Hernandez, 135 A.D.3d 957, 957, 23 N.Y.S.3d 582;  see People v. Hicks, 98 N.Y.2d 185, 187, 746 N.Y.S.2d 441, 774 N.E.2d 205).  Under the circumstances of this case, the court's inquiry was sufficient to determine that the defendant had violated a condition of his plea agreement (see People v. Durkin, 214 A.D.3d at 742, 183 N.Y.S.3d 319;  People v. Shealy, 195 A.D.3d at 1048, 146 N.Y.S.3d 797).

The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal is valid and precludes appellate review of his contentions that the sentence imposed was excessive and constituted cruel and unusual punishment (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255–256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145;  People v. Myke, 232 A.D.3d 913, 220 N.Y.S.3d 838).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.

DILLON, J.P., DOWLING, TAYLOR and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.