—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: According the determination of the trial court the great weight to which it is entitled (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761; People v Hill, 175 AD2d 603), we conclude that County Court properly determined that defendant’s confession was knowingly and voluntarily made (see, People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285, 289-290). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court’s Sandoval ruling constituted an abuse of discretion (see, People v Suber, 256 AD2d 1086; People v Richiez, 173 AD2d 234, 235, lv denied 78 NY2d 925). In any event, that contention lacks merit (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 375; see also, People v Mattiace, 77 NY2d 269, 275-276; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292). The record does not support defendant’s contention that, in violation of defendant’s due process rights, the court impermissibly considered uncharged conduct in sentencing defendant (see, People v Storelli, 216 AD2d 891, lv denied 86 NY2d 803; cf., People v Villanueva, 144 AD2d 285, lv denied 73 NY2d 897). Finally, the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Donalty, J. — Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Frank Madera, Appellant
262 A.D.2d 986692 N.Y.S.2d 625
Authorities cited
No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.