PEOPLE v. MURIQI

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Rrustem MURIQI, Appellant.

Decided: July 22, 2004

Before:  MERCURE, J.P., CREW III, PETERS, ROSE and KANE, JJ. John E. Kenny, Salem, for appellant. James A. Murphy III, District Attorney, Ballston Spa (Nicholas E. Tishler of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano Jr., J.), rendered July 14, 2003, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted burglary in the second degree.

 Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted burglary in the second degree.   In accordance with the plea agreement, he was sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of four years to be followed by 1 1/212 years of postrelease supervision.   Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that, although he was aware of the period of postrelease supervision, County Court failed to advise him of the consequences in the event that he violates the conditions of his postrelease supervision.   Having failed to object at sentencing, the issue is not preserved for our review (see People v. Van Gorden, 307 A.D.2d 547, 548, 763 N.Y.S.2d 686 [2003], lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 581, 775 N.Y.S.2d 797, 807 N.E.2d 910 [2003];  People v. Williams, 307 A.D.2d 537, 538, 762 N.Y.S.2d 292 [2003], lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 646, 769 N.Y.S.2d 212, 801 N.E.2d 433 [2003] ).   Were we to consider defendant's argument, we would find it to be without merit.  “A trial court has a constitutional duty to ensure that a defendant, before pleading guilty, has a full understanding of what the plea connotes” and its direct consequences (People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 402-403, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265 [1995] ).   County Court was not required to inform defendant of the consequences of not complying with the conditions of postrelease supervision, which conditions are set by the Board of Parole (see Penal Law § 70.45[3] ), as those were collateral consequences of his plea (see People v. Ford, supra at 403, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265;  People v. Goss, 286 A.D.2d 180, 733 N.Y.S.2d 310 [2001];  People v. Clark, 261 A.D.2d 97, 100, 704 N.Y.S.2d 149 [2000], lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 833, 713 N.Y.S.2d 140, 735 N.E.2d 420 [2000] ).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Copied to clipboard