PEOPLE v. MARONE (2010)

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Greene County (Pulver Jr., J.), entered April 21, 2009, which denied defendant's motion to amend the presentence investigation report.

Previously, this Court affirmed a judgment convicting defendant of two counts of grand larceny in the first degree and one count of scheme to defraud in the first degree arising out of an investment scheme orchestrated by defendant to defraud numerous friends and associates of nearly $5,000,000 (36 AD3d 956 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 987 [2007] ). While doing so, we concluded that defendant had “entered a knowing, voluntary and intelligent guilty plea and an unqualified waiver of the right to appeal” (id. at 956). Here, defendant appeals from County Court's denial of his pro se motion-submitted five years after his conviction and two years after this Court ruled on his direct appeal-to amend that portion of the presentence investigation report describing defendant's crimes as a “Ponzi Scheme.”

Although, as County Court observed, defendant's challenge to the contents of the presentence investigation report was preserved at sentencing, his failure to raise the issue on direct appeal (see e .g. People v. Thomas, 2 AD3d 982, 983-984 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 602 [2004]; People v. Henderson, 305 A.D.2d 940, 942 [2003], lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 582 [2003]; People v. Hinkhaus, 194 A.D.2d 1043, 1043-1044 [1993]; People v. Anderson, 184 A.D.2d 922, 923 [1992], lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 901 [1992] ) renders it abandoned (see generally People v. Jansen, 145 A.D.2d 870, 871 [1988], lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 923 [1989] ). In any event, our consideration of the matter would be precluded by defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal (see e.g. People v. Moquette, 200 A.D.2d 854, 854 [1994], lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 874 [1994] ).

ORDERED that the order is affirmed.

MALONE JR., J.

CARDONA, P.J., SPAIN, McCARTHY and EGAN JR., JJ., concur.