PEOPLE v. LaBAR (2005)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted sodomy in the first degree (Penal Law § 110.00, former § 130.50[3] ).   By pleading guilty, defendant forfeited his right to appellate review of his contention regarding the People's alleged failure to comply with the notice requirements of CPL 710.30 (see People v. Taylor, 65 N.Y.2d 1, 5-6, 489 N.Y.S.2d 152, 478 N.E.2d 755;  People v. Irvis, 301 A.D.2d 782, 783, 754 N.Y.S.2d 693, lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 655, 760 N.Y.S.2d 119, 790 N.E.2d 293).   The general waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses his contention that County Court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements (see People v. Bennett, 12 A.D.3d 1177, 1178, 784 N.Y.S.2d 427;  People v. Taylor, 302 A.D.2d 868, 754 N.Y.S.2d 480, lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 658, 760 N.Y.S.2d 123, 790 N.E.2d 297;  People v. Davidson, 298 A.D.2d 854, 855, 747 N.Y.S.2d 822, lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 557, 754 N.Y.S.2d 209, 784 N.E.2d 82).   The waiver of the right to appeal also encompasses the further contentions of defendant that the court abused its discretion in denying both his request for an adjournment of the Huntley hearing to obtain a transcript from Family Court and his request for an adjournment to retain new counsel (see People v. Morgan, 275 A.D.2d 970, 715 N.Y.S.2d 190, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 761, 725 N.Y.S.2d 288, 748 N.E.2d 1084;  People v. Lewis, 177 A.D.2d 715, 576 N.Y.S.2d 1017, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 859, 580 N.Y.S.2d 731, 588 N.E.2d 766).   Defendant never requested new assigned counsel, and thus we reject his contention that the court erred in failing to conduct an inquiry to determine whether good cause was shown to substitute counsel (cf. People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 824-825, 552 N.Y.S.2d 555, 551 N.E.2d 1233).   In his letter to the court, defendant requested an adjournment to retain new counsel;  although he set forth a list of reasons why he was not satisfied with his assigned counsel, he did not request different assigned counsel.   The further contention of defendant that he received ineffective assistance of counsel does not survive his guilty plea because “[t]here is no showing that the plea bargaining process was infected by any allegedly ineffective assistance or that defendant entered the plea because of his attorney['s] allegedly poor performance” (People v. Burke, 256 A.D.2d 1244, 1244, 682 N.Y.S.2d 650, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 851, 688 N.Y.S.2d 498, 710 N.E.2d 1097).   In any event, defendant received effective assistance of counsel (see People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: