PEOPLE v. JACKSON (2008)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Crecca, J.), rendered September 21, 2006, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (three counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 “ ‘A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court’ ” (People v. Gedin, 46 A.D.3d 701, 701, 847 N.Y.S.2d 231, quoting People v. Levy, 39 A.D.3d 670, 670, 831 N.Y.S.2d 909;  see CPL 220.60[3];  People v. Gutierrez, 35 A.D.3d 883, 827 N.Y.S.2d 267;  People v. Taylor, 17 A.D.3d 491, 792 N.Y.S.2d 348;  People v. Sloane, 13 A.D.3d 400, 785 N.Y.S.2d 538).   The defendant's plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see People v. Gedin, 46 A.D.3d at 701-702, 847 N.Y.S.2d 231;  People v. Gutierrez, 35 A.D.3d at 883, 827 N.Y.S.2d 267;  People v. Sloane, 13 A.D.3d at 400, 785 N.Y.S.2d 538).   The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was coerced is belied by the record (see People v. Gedin, 46 A.D.3d at 701, 847 N.Y.S.2d 231;  People v. Gutierrez, 35 A.D.3d at 883, 827 N.Y.S.2d 267;  People v. Sloane, 13 A.D.3d at 400, 785 N.Y.S.2d 538).

 “[T]he defendant's waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that the alleged ineffective assistance affected the voluntariness of his plea” (People v. Gedin, 46 A.D.3d at 701, 847 N.Y.S.2d 231;  see People v. Dixon, 41 A.D.3d 861, 862, 841 N.Y.S.2d 314).   The defendant failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel in the plea negotiating process and at his plea allocution.   The defendant's attorney assisted him in obtaining a favorable plea which limited the defendant's term of imprisonment to concurrent terms and satisfied several other charges (see People v. Brooks, 36 A.D.3d 929, 930, 828 N.Y.S.2d 553;  People v. Grimes, 35 A.D.3d 882, 883, 827 N.Y.S.2d 268;  People v. Mack, 31 A.D.3d 1197, 1198, 817 N.Y.S.2d 847;  People v. Miller, 17 A.D.3d 931, 932, 794 N.Y.S.2d 143), and the defendant stated at the plea allocution that he was satisfied with his appointed counsel's representation (see People v. Sherrill, 27 A.D.3d 588, 588, 810 N.Y.S.2d 372;  People v. Miller, 17 A.D.3d at 932, 794 N.Y.S.2d 143;  People v. Sloane, 13 A.D.3d at 400, 785 N.Y.S.2d 538;  People v. Weekes, 289 A.D.2d 599, 599, 735 N.Y.S.2d 815).   Additionally, the defendant's attorney did not take a position adverse to his client so as to create a conflict of interest between the two (see People v. Turner, 23 A.D.3d 503, 504, 805 N.Y.S.2d 614).   Moreover, as indicated, the defendant's plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made.

The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his challenge to the sentence as excessive (see People v. Gallo, 54 A.D.3d 964, 863 N.Y.S.2d 828;  People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.