People v Saaverda, 2015 NY Slip Op 07297 [132 AD3d 701]
October 7, 2015
Appellate Division, Second Department
[*1]
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Francisco Saaverda, Appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Jeanette Lifschitz, and Aurora Alvarez-Calderon of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Modica, J.), rendered March 19, 2013, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to a determinate term of imprisonment of 15 years, followed by a period of postrelease supervision.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence imposed from a determinate term of imprisonment of 15 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of eight years; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not deprived of his right to due process at a hearing that was conducted to determine whether he violated a condition of the plea agreement ( see People v Butler , 49 AD3d 894 , 895 [2008]; see also People v Cousar , 128 AD3d 716 [2015]; People v Youmans , 106 AD3d 1036 [2013]; People v Arrington , 94 AD3d 903 [2012]; People v Miles , 268 AD2d 489 [2000]). Here, the sentencing court conducted an inquiry sufficient to conclude that a violation of the plea agreement had occurred and, therefore, the court satisfied the requirements of due process ( see People v Valencia , 3 NY3d 714 , 715 [2004]; People v Outley , 80 NY2d 702 [1993]; People v Arrington , 94 AD3d 903 [2012]).
Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal does not extend to the imposition of the enhanced sentence that was imposed upon him ( see People v Pianaforte , 126 AD3d 815 , 816 [2015]; see also People v Maracle , 19 NY3d 925 [2012]). Thus, the waiver does not preclude review of his excessive sentence claim.
The enhanced sentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Leventhal, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur..