PEOPLE v. WOODS (2019)

Judgments of conviction (Robert H. Straus, J.H.O. at plea, Herbert J. Adlerberg, J.H.O. at sentencing), each rendered November 15, 2012, affirmed.

Defendant's argument that his guilty pleas were invalid because the court failed to advise him of his constitutional rights under Boykin v. Alabama (395 US 238 [1969]) is unpreserved, since defendant “could have sought relief from the sentencing court in advance of the sentence's imposition” (People v. Murray, 15 NY3d 725, 727 [2010]; see People v. Guzman, 134 AD3d 637 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 965 [2016]), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal. The only relief defendant requests is a dismissal in the interest of justice, and he expressly requests that this Court affirm his convictions if it does not dismiss the informations. Since it cannot be said that no penological purpose would be served by reinstating the proceedings, each charging, inter alia, aggravated unlicenced operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree, we would affirm (see People v. Diaz, 112 AD3d 423 [2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 1036 [2014]; People v. Schweitzer, 83 AD3d 503 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 800 [2011]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.