PEOPLE v. DRAGO (2008)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), rendered November 8, 2006, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The decision as to whether to permit a defendant to withdraw a previously entered plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the court (see People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520, 410 N.Y.S.2d 555, 382 N.E.2d 1332;  People v. DeLeon, 40 A.D.3d 1008, 1008-1009, 837 N.Y.S.2d 189;  People v. Mann, 32 A.D.3d 865, 866, 821 N.Y.S.2d 616;  People v. Turner, 23 A.D.3d 503, 805 N.Y.S.2d 614;  People v. Watson, 13 A.D.3d 402, 403, 785 N.Y.S.2d 542).   Here, to the extent that the defendant's pro se oral application to the County Court may be construed as one, in effect, to withdraw his plea of guilty on the ground that it was involuntary, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, such an application (see People v. Owens, 43 A.D.3d 1185, 842 N.Y.S.2d 94;  People v. Rangolan, 295 A.D.2d 543, 744 N.Y.S.2d 861;  People v. Fernandez, 291 A.D.2d 456, 737 N.Y.S.2d 545).   The record shows that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered (see People v. Garcia, 92 N.Y.2d 869, 870, 677 N.Y.S.2d 772, 700 N.E.2d 311;  People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646;  People v. Grimes, 35 A.D.3d 882, 883, 827 N.Y.S.2d 268).

 The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his claim that he was deprived of his right to effective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that the alleged ineffective assistance may have affected the voluntariness of his plea (see People v. Charpentier, 44 A.D.3d 680, 843 N.Y.S.2d 380;  People v. Sanchez, 33 A.D.3d 633, 634, 822 N.Y.S.2d 128).   With regard thereto, his contention rests mainly on matter dehors the record and, therefore, is not reviewable on direct appeal (see People v. DeLuca, 45 A.D.3d 777, 847 N.Y.S.2d 198;  People v. Sanchez, 33 A.D.3d at 634, 822 N.Y.S.2d 128).   Insofar as the claim is reviewable on the record before us, we find that counsel provided the defendant with meaningful representation (see People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265).