PEOPLE v. HARGROVES (2006)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), rendered June 10, 2002, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant's contention that his adjudication as a persistent felony offender violated his right to a jury trial pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 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. Hyatt, 2 A.D.3d 749, 768 N.Y.S.2d 651).

 The defendant's argument that the County Court did not comply with the procedural requirements of Penal Law § 70.10 and CPL 400.20 in adjudicating him a persistent felony offender is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit (see People v. Hudson, 296 A.D.2d 510, 745 N.Y.S.2d 475;  People v. Elliot, 283 A.D.2d 183, 726 N.Y.S.2d 7;  People v. Banks, 265 A.D.2d 163, 696 N.Y.S.2d 41).

 The defendant's contention that the sentence imposed improperly penalized him for exercising his right to a trial is also unpreserved for review, since he did not set forth the issue on the record at the time of sentencing (see People v. Best, 295 A.D.2d 441, 743 N.Y.S.2d 313).   In any event, the contention is without merit.   The record discloses no vindictiveness on the part of the County Court in arriving at the sentence, and the fact that the sentence imposed after trial was greater than that offered during plea negotiations is irrelevant (see People v. Best, supra;  People v. Robinson, 287 A.D.2d 582, 731 N.Y.S.2d 490).   The sentence imposed was not otherwise excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.