People v. Braunskill

2022 NY Slip Op 03902

The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Justin Braunskill, appellant.

No. 2019-06844, Ind. No. 2086/18

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

June 15, 2022

Steven A. Feldman, Manhasset, NY, for appellant.

Raymond A. Tierney, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Marion Tang of counsel), for respondent.

FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P., LINDA CHRISTOPHER, LARA J. GENOVESI, WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (William J. Condon, J.), rendered May 28, 2019, convicting him of criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise the issue in the Supreme Court (see People v Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d 375, 381-382; People v Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662; People v Rojas, 196 A.D.3d 704; People v Smith, 193 A.D.3d 986; People v Fraser, 192 A.D.3d 702). In any event, the record establishes that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Sougou, 26 N.Y.3d 1052, 1055-1056; People v Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d at 383-384; People v Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 20-21; People v Fraser, 192 A.D.3d at 703).

The defendant's contention that the sentence imposed violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Pena, 28 N.Y.3d 727, 730; People v Keller, 201 A.D.3d 657; People v Cerasaro, 179 A.D.3d 832), and is, in any event, without merit (see People v Brewster, 188 A.D.3d 1246; People v Rolling, 186 A.D.3d 1264; People v Miller, 74 A.D.3d 1097, 1097).

The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court failed to fully comply with CPL 400.15 and 400.21 before sentencing him as a second violent felony offender also is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Johnson, 186 A.D.3d 743, 744; People v Smothers, 175 A.D.3d 1441, 1442; People v Sutton, 161 A.D.3d 783, 784). In any event, the court substantially complied with the statutes (see People v Johnson, 186 A.D.3d at 744; People v Rogers, 173 A.D.3d 775, 776; People v Giddens, 161 A.D.3d 1191, 1194-1195; People v Carmello, 114 A.D.2d 965, 965-966; People v Bryant, 47 A.D.2d 51, 63).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

CONNOLLY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, GENOVESI and FORD, JJ., concur.