On appeal, defendant contends that SORA is unconstitutional as applied to him because it violates the ex post facto prohibition in the Federal Constitution (U.S. Const, art I, § 10, cl [1]). However, defendant did not raise that contention at the time of sentencing and, thus, failed to preserve it for our review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Ruz, 70 N.Y.2d 942, 943). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see, CPL 470.15 [a]).
We conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Genesee County Court, Morton, J. — Attempted Sexual Abuse, 1st Degree.)