People v. Espinoza

• Decision Date: 26 May 2021
• Docket Number: 2018–12254,S.C.I. No. 312/13
• Citation: 194 A.D.3d 1070,144 N.Y.S.3d 603 (Mem)
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jovan J. ESPINOZA, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

194 A.D.3d 1070

144 N.Y.S.3d 603 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Jovan J. ESPINOZA, appellant.

2018–12254

S.C.I. No. 312/13

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

Submitted—March 24, 2021

May 26, 2021

Yasmin Daley Duncan, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.

HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, ROBERT J. MILLER, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Peter M. Forman, J.), rendered August 21, 2018, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and sentencing him to a determinate term of imprisonment of one year to be followed by a period of postrelease supervision of two years on his previous conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

ORDERED that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that his admission at the violation of probation proceeding was invalid is unpreserved for appellate review. Although he had an adequate opportunity to do so, the defendant "did not raise these issues at sentencing and did not move to withdraw his admissions or vacate the amended judgment" ( People v. Emery, 40 A.D.3d 1009, 1010, 836 N.Y.S.2d 302 ; see People v. Alvarez, 26 A.D.3d 442, 810 N.Y.S.2d 490 ; People v. Lent, 10 A.D.3d 457, 780 N.Y.S.2d 922 ; People v. Viruet, 288 A.D.2d 407, 734 N.Y.S.2d 457 ; People v. Tavares, 197 A.D.2d 552, 604 N.Y.S.2d 739 ). Under the circumstances, we decline to review this contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6] ).

The defendant has completed the term of imprisonment imposed, and thus, his arguments concerning this portion of the sentence have been rendered academic (see People v. Stewart, 188 A.D.3d 932, 933, 132 N.Y.S.3d 325 ; People v. Worrell, 158 A.D.3d 828, 828, 68 N.Y.S.3d 915 ; People v. Rodriguez, 269 A.D.2d 613, 613, 704 N.Y.S.2d 822 ; People v. Young, 253 A.D.2d 676, 677, 677 N.Y.S.2d 469 ).

The defendant's contention that the period of postrelease supervision imposed was illegal is without merit (see Penal Law § 70.45[2][b] ). Contrary to the defendant's further contention, the period of postrelease supervision imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).

LASALLE,...