PEOPLE v. PERAZZO (2009)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Molea, J.), rendered June 5, 2003, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree (six counts) and grand larceny in the third degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

“The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his [contention] that he was denied effective assistance of counsel except to the extent that the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel [may have] affected the voluntariness of his plea” (People v. Rossetti, 55 A.D.3d 637, 638, 865 N.Y.S.2d 318; People v. McCollum, 54 A.D.3d 690, 863 N.Y.S.2d 699; People v. Perez, 51 A.D.3d 1043, 861 N.Y.S.2d 63). Moreover, “[b]y pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel which do not directly involve the bargaining process” (People v. Russell, 58 A.D.3d 759, 760, 871 N.Y.S.2d 702; People v. DeLuca, 45 A.D.3d 777, 847 N.Y.S.2d 198; People v. Turner, 40 A.D.3d 1018, 1019, 834 N.Y.S.2d 666). With respect to the defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was coerced as a result of the alleged ineffectiveness of his trial counsel, “ ‘[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, 847 N.Y.S.2d 231, quoting People v. Levy, 39 AD3d 670, 671; see CPL 220.60[3]; People v. Alexander, 97 N.Y.2d 482, 485, 743 N.Y.S.2d 45, 769 N.E.2d 802). “The defendant's [contention] that his plea of guilty was coerced as a result of the alleged ineffectiveness of his trial counsel is belied by [the record]” (People v. Gedin, 46 A.D.3d at 701, 847 N.Y.S.2d 231; People v. Gutierrez, 35 A.D.3d 883, 827 N.Y.S.2d 267). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's application to withdraw his plea of guilty.