PEOPLE v. JIGGETTS (2005)

Appeal by the defendant from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), imposed July 7, 2003, on the ground that the sentence is both illegal and excessive.

ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that he was not adequately advised that he would be subject to the maximum term of post-release supervision is unpreserved for appellate review because he did not move either to withdraw his plea either before sentencing or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v. Gregory, 16 A.D.3d 597, 790 N.Y.S.2d 892, lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 886, 798 N.Y.S.2d 732, 831 N.E.2d 977;  People v. Dale, 14 A.D.3d 712, 788 N.Y.S.2d 613, lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 885, 798 N.Y.S.2d 730, 831 N.E.2d 975;  People v. Redcross, 13 A.D.3d 559, 560, 787 N.Y.S.2d 374;  People v. Hall, 7 A.D.3d 812, 776 N.Y.S.2d 884;  People v. Russell, 7 A.D.3d 818, 776 N.Y.S.2d 862;  People v. Wronka, 6 A.D.3d 735, 775 N.Y.S.2d 167;  People v. Lofton, 6 A.D.3d 629, 774 N.Y.S.2d 802;  People v. Reed, 6 A.D.3d 554, 774 N.Y.S.2d 388).   In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant was adequately advised that he would be subject to the maximum period of post-release supervision as a consequence of his plea (see People v. Dale, supra;  People v. Wronka, supra;  see also People v. Cruz, 305 A.D.2d 424, 758 N.Y.S.2d 514).